DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 and 11-20 are pending in this application. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendment dated April 28, 2026 has been entered. Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 2-10 are canceled. Claims 11-20 are newly added. In view of amendments to the claims, the §112 rejection has been withdrawn.
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.
Claims 1, 11, and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kundu et al., US PG Pub 2012/0188377 A1 (hereafter "Kundu"), previously cited, in view of Bacallao et al., US PG Pub 2018/0334182 A1 (hereafter "Bacallao").
Regarding claim 1, Kundu teaches a monitoring support system, comprising:
a shopping cart having a container space, (¶¶0042),
the registration terminal configured to register a product identified with a code scanned by the scanner (¶¶0041-0045, 0050, 0052, 0077, 0080, and 0122);
the camera directable to the container space of the shopping cart and configured to take an image including the container space (¶¶0041, 0050-0051, 0104, and 0122);
a management terminal including a display configured to display the image taken by the camera (¶¶0091-0093); and
a processing apparatus connected to the registration terminal over a network and configured to determine whether or not the product registered by the registration terminal is a predetermined product that needs to be checked (¶¶0043, 0074-0075, 0086, and 0122);
acquire, where the registered product is the predetermined product that needs to be checked, image data of the image taken by the camera at a predetermined timing after a timing at which the product has been registered has been registered by the registration terminal (¶¶0014-0015, 0041, 0049-0060, 0079-0091, and 0097-0107), and
control the display of the management terminal to display the image taken by the camera based on the acquired image data (¶¶0091-0093).
Kundu does not teach wherein a registration terminal, a scanner, and a camera are mounted on the shopping cart. Bacallao teaches a shopping cart with scanner system including wherein a registration terminal, a scanner, and a camera are mounted on the shopping cart (Figures 1-8 and ¶¶0019-0021, 0033-0034, and 0037). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Kundu, to include mounting the hardware on the cart as taught by Bacallao, "so that the scanner can scan the products in the shopping cart," as suggested by Bacallao (¶0014).
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar field of endeavor, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Bacallao, the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 11, Kundu in view of Bacallao teaches the monitoring support system according to claim 1, wherein a sensor is also mounted on the shopping cart, the sensor configured to detect placement of the product in the container space (Bacallao ¶0015), and the predetermined timing is a timing when the sensor detects the placement of the product in the container space (Kundu (¶¶0014-0015, 0041, 0049-0060, 0079-0091, and 0097-0107). The combination would have been obvious for the reasons stated above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, Kundu in view of Bacallao teaches the monitoring support system according to claim 11, wherein the scanner is directed to a region different from the container space (Kundu ¶¶0050 and 0077).
Regarding claim 14, Kundu in view of Bacallao teaches the monitoring support system according to claim 1, wherein the image displayed on the display is included in an instant checking window that includes an operational object to check whether proper registration has been made for the product, and the processing apparatus is configured to receive a check result based on operation of the operational object (Kundu Figures 2-4 and 7, and ¶¶0019-0023, 0053-0057, and 0091).
Regarding claim 15, Kundu in view of Bacallao teaches the monitoring support system according to claim 14, wherein the management terminal is configured to display the instant checking window overlaid on a product list indicating one or more products registered by the registration terminal (Kundu Figures 2-4, and ¶¶0019-0023, 0053-0067, and 0091).
Regarding claim 16, Kundu in view of Bacallao teaches the monitoring support system according to claim 1, wherein the registration terminal includes a second display and is configured to display, on the second display, a rechecking window that includes a first text message that instructs checking of whether proper registration has been made for the product and a first operational object to declare that proper registration has been made for the product (Kundu Figures 2-4 and 7, and ¶¶0019-0023, 0053-0057, and 0091).
Regarding claim 17, Kundu in view of Bacallao teaches the monitoring support system according to claim 16, wherein the image displayed on the display is included in an instant checking window that includes a second operational object to check whether proper registration has been made for the product, and the processing apparatus is configured to receive a check result based on operation of the second operational object, and control the second display of the registration terminal to display the rechecking window when the check result indicates that the proper registration has not been made for the product (Kundu Figures 2-4, and ¶¶0019-0023, 0053-0057, 0079, and 0091).
Regarding claim 18, Kundu in view of Bacallao teaches the monitoring support system according to claim 16, wherein the registration terminal is configured to display, on the second display, a registration screen including a product list indicating one or more products registered by the registration terminal and a third operational object to proceed to payment, and the processing apparatus is configured to control the second display of the registration terminal to display the rechecking window upon operation of the third operational object (Kundu Figures 2-4 and 7, and ¶¶0019-0023, 0045-0057, 0079, and 0091).
Regarding claim 19, Kundu in view of Bacallao teaches the monitoring support system according to claim 18, wherein the processing apparatus is configured to disable processing of the payment until operation of the first operational object (Kundu ¶¶0061-0074, claim 12).
Regarding claim 20, Kundu in view of Bacallao teaches the monitoring support system according to claim 18, wherein the registration terminal is configured to display, on the second display, a checking informing window including a second text message informing that checking by a sales clerk is necessary, upon operation of the third operational object, and the processing apparatus is configured to control the second display of the registration terminal to display the rechecking window after the checking informing window is displayed (Kundu Figures 2-4, and ¶¶0019-0023, 0053-0057, 0079, and 0091).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kundu in view of Bacallao, and in further view of Mirza et al., US PG Pub 2021/0125258 A1 (hereafter "Mirza"), previously cited but not replied upon.
Regarding claim 12, Kundu in view of Bacallao teaches the monitoring support system according to claim 11, but does not teach wherein the sensor comprises a weight scale configured to measure a weight of one or more products in the container space, and the sensor is configured to detect the placement of the product based on a change of the measured weight. Mirza teaches detecting and identifying misplaced items using a sensor array including the known technique wherein the sensor comprises a weight scale configured to measure a weight of one or more products in the container space, and the sensor is configured to detect the placement of the product based on a change of the measured weight (¶¶0072, 0077-0090, and 0201-0216). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Kundu, to include a weight sensor as taught by Mirza, in order to "determine when items have been removed," as suggested by Mirza (¶0003).
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar field of endeavor, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Mirza, the results of the combination were predictable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks pp. 6-8, filed 4/28/2026, with respect to the §101 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The §101 rejection of claim 1 has been withdrawn. The claim features involve non-generic unique features of taking an image of the container space at a specific timing after product registration through scanning by the scanner, so that the image shows the registered product being placed in the container space, which enables manual checking of whether proper registration has been made for the product. Therefore, the claims recite an improved image-based product registration check compared over a conventional system that was unable to flag suspicious product registration.
Applicant's arguments regarding the prior art have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Kundu does not teach any scanner or any camera mounted to a shopping cart and the acquisition of image data taken by the camera at a predetermined timing after a timing when the product has been registered. Kundu explicitly teaches these features as cited above. Kundu does not teach that the camera is mounted to the cart which is taught by the secondary reference as cited and the combination would have been obvious for the reasons stated above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Buehler et al., US PG Pub 2012/0206605 A1, teaches an intelligent camera selection and object tracking system.
Non-patent literature Viswanadha, V., and Chiranjeevi Reddy teaches a smart shopping cart.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER B SEIBERT whose telephone number is (571)272-5549. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeff Smith can be reached at 571-272-6763. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER B SEIBERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688
Prosecution Insights