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 .
Response to Arguments
101/ODP rejections withdrawn based on amendments.
Arguments regarding prior art rejections are moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 10, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Glaser (US 20230153878 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Glaser discloses a commodity sales system, comprising:
A customer detection sensor to detect each customer that has entered a store and to track each customer in the store (paragraph 71 person tracking);
A commodity detection sensor to detect, for a customer in the store, a commodity that the customer takes from a commodity shelf in the store (paragraph 47);
A management apparatus including first processing circuitry configured to :
Associate, based on the tracking of the customer, the commodity with the customer that took the commodity from the commodity shelf (abstract virtual cart), and
Add, the commodity to an object of the transaction with the customer (abstract virtual cart); and
A settlement apparatus including second processing circuitry configured to perform a settlement process for an amount of transaction with the customer (fig. 2 s140), each commodity that the management apparatus has added to the object of transaction, wherein in a case that the commodity is a specific commodity requiring age verification, the first processing circuitry performs an age verification process for the customer before authorizing settlement of the commodity in the transaction (fig. 2 s130).
Regarding claim 10, Glaser discloses:
10. The commodity sales system according to claim 1, wherein the specific commodity includes at least one of alcohol and cigarettes (paragraph 22 alcohol).
Claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2, 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glaser (US 20230153878 A1) in view of Katayama (US 20190259014 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Glazer fails to clearly disclose and Katayama discloses:
2. The commodity sales system according to claim 1, further comprising: a discharge apparatus to discharge the commodity, wherein in a case that the age of the customer is verified by the age verification process, the discharge apparatus discharges the specific commodity (paragraph 119-120). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine this teaching with those of Glaser by implementing a discharge apparatus. The motivation for the combination is to reduce labor (paragraph 32).
Regarding claim 6, Glazer fails to clearly disclose and Katayama discloses:
6. The commodity sales system according to claim 1, wherein the settlement apparatus includes an electronic payment device which acquires information for electronic payment from an electronic payment medium possessed by the customer (paragraph 63, 102, 152), and the first processing circuitry of the management apparatus is further configured to: request a server, which performs the electronic payment, to provide information on the age of the customer, based on the information acquired by the electronic payment device (paragraph 63, 102, 152), and perform the age verification process based on the information acquired from the server (paragraph 63, 102, 152). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine this teaching with those of Glaser by implementing Katayama’s verification process. The motivation for the combination is to reduce labor (paragraph 32).
Regarding claim 7, Glazer fails to clearly disclose and Katayama discloses: 7. The commodity sales system according to claim 1, a selection device to receive a selection of the commodity at purchase (paragraph 119); wherein when an operation for selecting the commodity is performed with the selection device, the processing circuitry of the management apparatus performs a notification process of notifying that there is a customer who desires to purchase the commodity (paragraph 88, paragraph 220). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine this teaching with those of Glaser by implementing Katayama’s verification process. The motivation for the combination is to reduce labor (paragraph 32).
Regarding claim 8, Glazer fails to clearly disclose and Katayama discloses:
8. The commodity sales system according to claim 1, wherein when the age of the customer is not verified in the age verification process, or when the customer has performed an operation with the settlement apparatus to cancel purchase of the commodity, the settlement apparatus excludes the commodity from the object of transaction, and performs the settlement process (paragraph 122). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine this teaching with those of Glaser by implementing Katayama’s verification process. The motivation for the combination is to reduce labor (paragraph 32).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glaser (US 20230153878 A1) in view of Katayama (US 20190259014 A1) and further in view of Patel (US 20210406970 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Glaser as modified per claim 2 fails to disclose and Patel discloses wherein when the settlement apparatus has completed the settlement process for the amount of transaction, the discharge apparatus discharges the commodity (paragraph 174). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine this teaching with those of Glaser as modified by dispensing after settlement completes. The motivation for the combination is an improved user experience (paragraph 40)
Claim(s) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glaser (US 20230153878 A1) in view of Patel (US 20210406970 A1).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Glaser as per claim 1 fails to disclose and Patel discloses:
4. The commodity sales system according to claim 1, further comprising: a reading device to read information from a qualification certificate possessed by the customer, wherein the management apparatus performs the age verification process by reading information on the purchase qualification with the reading device (paragraphs 130 and 133), a selection device configured to receive a selection of the commodity at purchase wherein the reading device is included in the selection device (paragraphs 130 and 133) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine this teaching with those of Glaser as modified by dispensing based on reading a driver’s license. The motivation for the combination is an improved user experience (paragraph 40)
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kumar (US 20150019391 A1) discloses an autonomous checkout system. Glaser (US 20180232796 A1) discloses an autonomous checkout system including an age verification process. Ryner (US 20190050921 A1) discloses a checkout system including validating user identification for age-restricted items.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN A MITCHELL whose telephone number is (571)270-3117. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Ryan Zeender can be reached at 571-272-6790. 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.
/NATHAN A MITCHELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627