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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS(s) has/have been considered and placed in the application file.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 9, and 16 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 21 of U.S. Patent No. 11,532,161 (parent application 16/831,742) in view of Clark et al. (US 2017/0186072 A1 - hereinafter "Clark"). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claim 21 further recites: "when an object is removed from the shopping cart, perform object recognition on an image of the object captured by the camera, and determine whether the recognized object is a registered commodity, and upon determining that the recognized object is a registered commodity, issue a request for displaying a message instructing the customer to unregister the registered commodity." This corresponds to the instant claims' removal detection and cancel-registration message.
The instant claims differ from patented claim 21 in that the instant claims recite: (I) a display on the cart device, (2) acquiring registration information through a connection with another computing device, and (3) controlling the camera to capture an image and generate image data.
For (1), claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 11 ,5 32,161 recites "a display, wherein the message is displayed on the display." It would have been obvious to incorporate a display on the cart device of patented claim 21. For (2), Clark teaches a smart shopping cart system where the cart's computing unit communicates wirelessly with the customer's mobile device, which maintains the electronic cart-the registration information indicating all commodities registered for purchase (Clark: "The customer will use their mobile device as their electronic shopping cart. The mobile device is associated to the smart shopping cart" ([0016)); "As items are added to the cart, the RFID reader will capture each item's information ... to automatically add it to the customer's electronic shopping cart on their mobile device" ([00171).) Clark's mobile device constitutes "another computing device" from which the cart device acquires registration information through a wireless connection. For (3), controlling the camera to capture an image and generate image data is an inherent and necessary step in performing the "object recognition on an image of the object captured by the camera" already recited in patented claim 21.
It would have been obvious to modify claim 21 of U.S. Patent No. 11,532,161 to include a display (as in patented claim 2) and Clark's two-device registration architecture. The motivation would have been to allow customers to use their own mobile device for commodity registration while the cart device monitors basket contents, and to provide a cart-mounted display for immediate visual feedback on removal events.
Claim 1, 9, and 16 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,948,364 B2 (parent application 18/079842) in view of Teramura (JP 2010/280468 A). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because 1 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 10,621,441, are directed to detecting objects placed in the cart (unregistered item detection) and do not recite removal detection or a cancel-registration message.
However, Teramura teaches removal detection and notification as set forth above in the rejection over U.S. Patent No. 10,621,441. Specifically, Teramura teaches camera-based object recognition identifying products taken out of the basket ([0029]), checking removed products against a managed product list (S203, [0066]), and outputting a warning on the display ([0067]).
It would have been obvious to modify claims 1 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,532,161 with Teramura's removal detection and notification to provide a complete monitoring system that detects both unregistered items placed in the cart and registered items removed from it.
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.
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.
Claims 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teramura et al., "Article Managing Device, Article Conveying Device, and System and Method for Processing Article," JP 2010/280468 A, (hereinafter "Teramura"), in view of Clark et al., "Smart Shopping Cart and Method of Use," US 2017/0186072 A1, (hereinafter "Clark"), in view of Napper et al. “Point Of Sale Device For Use With A Shopping Cart,” US 2012/0296751 A1, (hereinafter “Napper”).
Claims 1, 9, and 16.
Teramura and Clark disclose a computing device installed in or mountable on a shopping cart, comprising:
a display (Teramura [0041]: "The output unit 47 has a function of outputting information related to the management status in the article management apparatus 40, and mainly provides information on the product 100 currently (and managed) in the bag 20 to the customer." [0043]: "information (price, detailed information, etc.) of the product 100 put in the bag 20 may be displayed on the display 47a." This teaches a display, i.e., output unit 47 including display 47a, presenting commodity information to the customer on the cart.);
a camera that faces a basket of the shopping cart (Teramura [0026]: "the camera 43 is arranged so as to photograph the entrance portion of the bag 20 so that the product 100 entering and exiting the bag 20 can be photographed, and the photographed image is analyzed at regular or irregular intervals." This teaches a camera positioned at the basket entrance to capture images of items entering and exiting, i.e., a camera facing the basket.);
PNG
media_image1.png
287
672
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and a processor configured to: (Teramura [0026]: "the photographed image is analyzed at regular or irregular intervals." [0064]: "When the product 100-2 is taken out from the bag 20 by the customer, an image of the taken out product 100 (product 100-2) is taken by the camera 43." This teaches controlling the camera to capture images of items entering and exiting the basket and generating image data therefrom for analysis by image analysis unit 45.), performing object recognition on the image data to determine whether a commodity has been removed from the basket, upon determining that a commodity has been removed from the basket (Teramura [0029]: "when an image obtained by photographing the product 100 put
in the bag 20 or the product 100 to be taken out is given from the camera 43, the image
analysis unit 45 identifies the product 100 based on the shape and color." [0089]: "when
the product 100 moves upward from the direction of the bag 20, the product 100 is
removed from the bag 20." This teaches performing object recognition-specifically,
identifying the product based on shape and color and detecting upward motion direction
to determine whether a commodity has been removed from the basket.), determine based on the registration information whether the removed commodity is one of the registered commodities (Teramura [0066]: "the product 100 that has been detected to be taken out in step S201 described above is the product 100 that is the management target in the managed product list 41a ... it is determined whether or not the product 100 ... is the correct product 100 (S203)." This teaches, upon detecting removal, determining whether the removed commodity is one of the managed (registered) commodities by comparing it against the managed product list 41a.), and upon determining that the removed commodity is one of the registered commodities, control the display to display a (Teramura [0043]: "the display 47a may ... be separately provided with an input means such as a touch panel so that the customer wants to see by menu operation." [0068]: When a product mismatch is detected, "the output unit 47 outputs a warning to the customer (for example, an audio output of an error message or output to a display)." This teaches controlling the display to present the customer with product status information and
warnings upon detecting an item removal discrepancy.).
Teramura does not specifically teach acquiring the registration information through a
connection with another computing device, the registration information indicating one or more commodities that have been registered for purchase (i.e., a device separate from the cart-mounted article management apparatus). However, Clark, in the same field of endeavor of smart shopping cart systems for retail self-checkout, teaches: (Clark [0016]: "The customer will use their mobile device as their electronic shopping cart. The mobile device is associated to the smart shopping cart that the customer chooses." [0017]: "As items are added to the cart, the RFID reader will capture each item's information from the item's RFID chip to automatically add it to the customer's electronic shopping cart on their mobile device." [0018]: "The app on the customer's phone will give them information about the status of their smart shopping cart including what is in their physical/smart shopping cart and is also in their electronic cart." This teaches that the registration information-the electronic cart listing the commodities registered for purchase-is held on the customer's mobile device, a computing device separate from the cart-mounted unit, and is acquired by the cart through a wireless connection to that mobile device.)
Teramura does not use the express phrase "cancel registration" in its warning messages.
However, Teramura's display 47a presents the customer with product status and warning information upon item removal ([0067]), and Clark teaches: (Clark [0018]: "The application on the customer's mobile device will notify the customer of what was removed from the smart shopping cart." This teaches displaying a notification to the customer identifying a commodity removed from the cart, which under the broadest reasonable interpretation constitutes a message conveying the cancellation of that item's registration from the electronic cart.). Moreover, Napper teaches when an item is removed from the shopping cart, (Napper [0081]: "the removed product's identification and an indication that the product is removed from the shopping cart 100 may be displayed on the user interface 202 of the control unit 104." This teaches displaying a notification to the customer identifying a commodity removed from the cart, which under the broadest reasonable interpretation constitutes a message conveying the cancellation of that item's registration from the electronic cart.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine
Teramura and Clark before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Both references address the same technical problem of accurately tracking which items a customer intends to purchase as they move through a retail store. Teramura's article management device 40 includes a communication unit 42 expressly designed for wireless communication with external devices via Bluetooth or other wireless protocols (Teramura [0023]: "For communication between the communication unit 42 and the external device, wireless communication, near field communication using Bluetooth (registered trademark), IrDA (Infrared Data Association), or the like may be used.") The motivation to combine would have been to leverage the customer's personal mobile device, as taught by Clark, as the repository for the electronic registration list, reducing cart hardware cost and allowing the customer to build and manage their shopping list on a device they already carry, while retaining Teramura's camera based image recognition for item removal detection. This combination is a straightforward integration of Teramura's communication unit 42 with Clark's mobile device registration architecture, yielding the predictable benefit of a more capable and user-friendly smart cart system. It would have been obvious to implement Teramura's basket monitoring system with Clark’s two-device registration and Napper’s removal notification display pattern, al all three reference address the same problem of tracking customer items in a self-checkout cart environment, and using Napper’s removed product’s identification on the cart’s user interface directly informs the customer of the discrepancy at the point of detection. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007).
Claims 2, 10, and 17.
Teramura, Clark, and Napper disclose the computing device according to claim 1, wherein the processor controls the display to display the message after a predetermined time elapses from when the commodity is determined to be removed from the basket (Teramura [0026]: "the photographed image is analyzed at regular or irregular intervals." This teaches that the article management device operates on a time-interval basis, inherently establishing that detection events and responsive display actions are separated by a measurable, predetermined time period.).
Displaying a cancel-registration message after a predetermined delay following removal detection is a straightforward and predictable design choice to prevent false triggers when a customer briefly lifts an item to examine it, consistent with the interval-based monitoring cycle taught by Teramura. Claims 2, 10, and 17 are rejected for the reasons set forth above for claims 1, 9, and 16, respectively, and further as just discussed.
Claims 3, 11, and 18.
Teramura, Clark, and Napper disclose the computing device according to claim 1, further comprising: an interface connectable to a weight sensor attached to the shopping cart (Teramura [0025]: "The weighing sensor 44 measures the weight of the bag 20 (including the contained product 100) and notifies the control unit 41 of the measurement result. The weighing sensor 44 may measure the weight of the basket 20 at regular or irregular intervals and notify the measurement result to the control unit 41, or the weight of the basket 20 has changed more than a predetermined amount." This teaches a weight sensor interface-weighing sensor 44 connected to control unit 41-for measuring basket weight at the cart.), wherein the processor is further configured to determine whether a commodity is removed from the basket based on a signal that is output by the weight sensor (Teramura [0086]: "when the weight measured by the weighing sensor 44 ... The product 100 photographed by the camera 43 after the decrease ... may be determined as the product taken out from the bag 20." [0064]: "due to the change in weight detected by the weighing sensor 44, the weight of the taken product 100 (product 100-2) is detected (S201)." This teaches determining whether a commodity has been removed from the basket based on a signal output by the weight sensor, specifically a weight decrease signal indicating an item was taken out.). Claims 3, 11, and 18 are rejected for the reasons set forth above for claims 1, 9, and 16, respectively, and further as discussed.
Claims 4, 12, and 19.
Teramura, Clark, and Napper disclose the computing device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to control the display to display commodity information corresponding to the removed commodity (Teramura [0043]: "information (price, detailed information, etc.) of the
product 100 put in the bag 20 may be displayed on the display 47a." This teaches displaying commodity information-including price and detailed product information-on the display for items in the basket, which encompasses displaying such information for a removed commodity identified by the image analysis unit.) Claims 4, 12, and 19 are rejected for the reasons set forth above for claims 1, 9, and 16, respectively, and further as just discussed.
Claims 5, 13, and 20.
Teramura, Clark, and Napper disclose the computing device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to: determine whether registration of the removed commodity is cancelled, and upon determining that registration of the removed commodity is cancelled, control the display to erase the message (Teramura [0043]: "the display 47a may ... be separately provided with an input means such as a touch panel so that the customer wants to see by menu operation. Information may be displayed." This teaches an interactive display capable of presenting and dismissing information based on device state and user interaction.)
Clark further teaches a notification system that tracks and communicates the current registration state of cart items to the customer in real time ([0018]). Erasing the cancel-registration message after confirming cancellation is the natural, predictable result of implementing any standard notification lifecycle within the interactive display system taught by Teramura and the dynamic cart-state tracking taught by Clark. Claims 5, 13, and 20 are rejected for the reasons set forth above for claims 1, 9, and 16, respectively, and further as just discussed.
Claims 6 and 14.
Teramura, Clark, and Napper disclose the computing device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to perform a pairing process for establishing the connection with said another computing device before starting registration of the commodities (Clark [0016]: "The customer will use their mobile device as their electronic shopping cart. The mobile device is associated to the smart shopping cart that the customer chooses and serves as an RFID reader." [0032] (FIG. 3): "Customer starts 301 and associates mobile device with their smart shopping cart 302." This teaches a pairing/association process by which the customer's mobile device is linked to the specific cart before shopping and registration of items begins.) Furthermore, Teramura's communication unit 42 communicates via Bluetooth: (Teramura [0023]: "For communication between the communication unit 42 and the external device, wireless communication, near field communication using Bluetooth (registered trademark), IrDA (Infrared Data Association), or the like may be used." This teaches wireless communication protocols that, by their nature, require a pairing or association handshake before a secure data channel is established.) Claims 6 and 14 are rejected for the reasons set forth above for claims 1 and 9, respectively, and further as just discussed.
Claim 7.
Teramura, Clark, and Napper disclose the computing device according to claim 1, further comprising: a clip attachable to a handle of the shopping cart (Clark [0025]: "The mobile device cradle (holder) according to the invention includes the ability to hold a conventional mobile device and focus the mobile device RF signal into the cart input zone." (See also FIG. 1A,
depicting cradle 102 mounted on the upper handle portion of smart shopping cart 100.)
This teaches a physical attachment mechanism for securing a computing device to the
shopping cart.) A clip is a functionally equivalent and obvious design variation of a holder or
cradle for attaching a computing device to the cart handle. Selecting a clip over a cradle is a
straightforward mechanical design choice well within ordinary skill in the art, involving no more
than combining known elements (clip attachment) with known structures (cart-mounted
computing device) to yield the predictable result of securing the device to the cart. Claim 7 is
rejected for the reasons set forth above for claim 1 and further as just discussed.
Claims 8 and 15.
Teramura, Clark, and Napper disclose the computing device according to claim 1, wherein the registration of the removed commodity is cancelled when a UI element is displayed on the display and a selection of the UI element is made by a user (Teramura [0043]: "the display 47a may ... be separately provided with an input means such as a touch panel so that the customer wants to see by menu operation. Information may be displayed." This teaches a touch-screen display on the cart device through which the customer can interact with the article management system via menu selections, i.e., by selecting UI elements displayed on the screen.) Clark's mobile application provides the user interface for managing the electronic cart and notifying the customer of removed items ([0018]). Implementing the cancel-registration action via a displayed UI button element that the user taps to confirm is a standard and obvious implementation of the interactive, menu-driven display taught by Teramura and the notification-based cart management taught by Clark. Presenting a selectable UI element for user confirmation before effecting a state change (cancellation) is a well-established and predictable UI design pattern within ordinary skill in the art. Claims 8 and 15 are rejected for the reasons set forth above for claims 1 and 9, respectively, and further as just discussed..
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ross Varndell whose telephone number is (571)270-1922. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-5 EST.
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, O’Neal Mistry can be reached at (313)446-4912. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Ross Varndell/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2674
Prosecution Insights