DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is the first action on the merits for application 18/473,883. Claims 1-10 are currently pending in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/21/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
Figure 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated (see, for reference, paragraph [0008]). See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it includes implied phrases (e.g., line 1, “This invention presents”) and refers to purported merits (e.g., line 1, “designed to revolutionize…”). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2 and 4-9 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KADIYALA (US 2020/0031380 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, KADIYALA discloses a high-tech shopping cart (see Figs. 3 and 4) comprising: four wheels (24) for movement within a retail establishment (paragraph [0027], “retail”); a plurality of storage compartments (unlabeled upper and lower storage compartments shown in Fig. 3) for accommodating a plurality of selected items (paragraph [0023], “items…in and out of the receptacle”); a controller (controller portion of (12)) configured to manage item selection and calculate a total purchase price (paragraph [0023], “12 tallies the items and provides a price for the items on the display”); a database communicatively coupled with the controller (paragraph [0015], “centralized server…wirelessly communicates with…12”), the database storing information related to the plurality of selected items (paragraph [0024], “retrieving data…from the centralized server over the network”); a user interface (paragraph [0017], “computing systems includes…a user interface”; paragraph [0018], “user interface may include a…touchscreen”; paragraph [0024], “12 may receive a search query via the display”) comprising a display device (display portion of (12)) and a plurality of control input devices (paragraph [0018], “user interface may include a…touchscreen”; paragraph [0024], “12 may receive a search query via the display”); and a plurality of sensors (14, 22), a battery for power supply (paragraph [0026], “powered by a battery”), and at least one motor (24) for autonomous movement of the high-tech shopping cart (paragraph [0014], “plurality of motorized wheels 24”; paragraph [0020], “shopping cart 20 automatically follows a user”).
Regarding Claim 2, KADIYALA discloses the four wheels (24) are individually connected to a plurality of electric motors to enable independent movement (paragraph [0014], “plurality of motorized wheels 24”; paragraph [0020], “shopping cart 20 automatically follows a user”).
Regarding Claim 4, KADIYALA discloses the controller (12) is configured to track a budget as the plurality of selected items are chosen within the retail establishment (paragraph [0023], “12 tallies the items and provides a price for the items on the display”).
Regarding Claim 5, KADIYALA discloses the user interface comprises a dashboard with a computer screen display and a plurality of user input controls (paragraph [0018], “user interface may include a keyboard…monitor…touchscreen”)
Regarding Claim 6, KADIYALA discloses the high-tech shopping cart is configured to traverse a plurality of stairs with a stair climbing mechanism (24). Note, Applicant has not claimed any specific structure for the “stair climbing mechanism” and limitation “configured to traverse a plurality of stairs…” constitutes intended use. Motorized wheels 24 are clearly capable of performing the intended use as this is merely a function of design choice parameters including wheel size, wheel friction, motor torque, step height, etc.
Regarding Claim 7, KADIYALA discloses a wireless transceiver configured to communicate with a store database and a mobile application on a mobile device (paragraph [0015], “centralized server…wirelessly communicates with…12”, “smart phone 26…to communicate with…12”).
Regarding Claim 8, KADIYALA discloses a plurality of light emitting diode lights (16) for illumination.
Regarding Claim 9, KADIYALA discloses the plurality of sensors are configured to halt a movement of the high-tech shopping cart (paragraph [0021], “sensors 14…stops the motorized wheels 24”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KADIYALA (US 2020/0031380 A1) in view of MANSONS (US 2003/0085538 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, KADIYALA discloses the high-tech shopping cart of claim 1, described in detail above, but does not disclose an automated locking hard cover to secure the plurality of selected items within the high-tech shopping cart.
MANSONS discloses a shopping cart (see Fig. 1) with an automated locking hard cover (26) to secure a plurality of selected items within the shopping cart (paragraph [0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the high-tech shopping cart of KADIAYALA an automated locking hard cover to secure the plurality of selected items within the high-tech shopping cart, as disclosed by MANSONS, for the predictable result of providing a secure location for items (see MANSONS paragraph [0027]).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KADIYALA (US 2020/0031380 A1) in view of MATTINGLY et al. (US 2017/0344935 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, KADIYALA discloses the high-tech shopping cart of claim 1, described in detail above and further wherein the database stores price data for a plurality of merchandise within the retail establishment (paragraph [0015], “centralized server…wirelessly communicates with…12”; paragraph [0023], “12 tallies the items and provides a price for the items on the display”). However, KADIYALA does not explicitly disclose the database stores a plurality of expiration dates for a plurality of merchandise within the retail establishment.
MATTINGLY et al. discloses a merchandise monitoring system including a database that stores a plurality of expiration dates for a plurality of merchandise within a retail establishment (see paragraph [0054], “data from the merchandise database 412…estimated expiration date”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the high-tech shopping cart of KADIAYALA the database storing a plurality of expiration dates for a plurality of merchandise within the retail establishment, as disclosed by MATTINGLY et al., for the predictable result of not allowing the sale of expired goods.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
LAPIDOS-SALAIZ (US 2020/0210982 A1) discloses a shopping cart that allows a user to scan and pay for items using a built-in computing device (see ABSTRACT).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWIN YOUNG whose telephone number is (571)272-4781. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am - 6:00 pm (CST).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jacob S Scott can be reached at (571)270-3415. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
EDWIN YOUNG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3655
/Edwin A Young/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655