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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informality: punctuation in Line 2. Replacing “redundant connectors, connector bars or interfaces” with “redundant connectors, connector bars, or interfaces” is suggested. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informality: punctuation in Line 4. Replacing “the second pushable transport cart, the stockage station or the charging station” with “the second pushable transport cart, the stockage station, or the charging station” is suggested. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informality: wording in Line 13. Replacing “and then successively the with regard” is suggested. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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 1-3 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa et al. (US 20210221419 A1) (hereinafter “Ishikawa”) in view of Kim et al. (US 11518263 B2) (hereinafter “Kim”). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 1, Ishikawa teaches a pushable transport cart system comprising at least a first pushable transport cart and a second pushable transport cart [Ishikawa Fig. 1; Ishikawa Paragraph 0011: “For illustration purpose, only one shopping cart 10 and one power transmitting device 20 are shown in FIG. 1. However, the cart system 1 may include a plurality of shopping carts 10 and a plurality of power transmitting devices 20.”], the first and second pushable transport carts comprising an electric storage device and an electric device and two contact elements [Ishikawa Fig. 1, Reference Character 15; Ishikawa Paragraph 0012: “the shopping cart 10 includes a cart body 11, a scanner 12, a terminal device 13, a power receiving device 14, a mobile battery 15, and a current detection circuit 16.”], the two contact elements establishing an electric contact in a movement-controlled manner by an insertion movement of the first and second pushable transport carts into one another, wherein a connection is established between an electric connecting device of the first pushable transport cart and an electric connecting device of the second pushable transport cart and/or a stockage and/or charging station [Ishikawa Fig. 1, Reference Characters 14 and 20; Ishikawa Paragraph 0016: “The power receiving device 14 wirelessly receives the power transmitted by the power transmitting device 20.”], and a controller, but does not teach a storage device of the first pushable transport cart being charged from a storage device of the second pushable transport cart.
Kim teaches control logic is provided which provides a charge flow management in which a storage device of the first pushable transport cart is charged from a storage device of the second pushable transport cart [Kim Figs. 11 and 12; Kim Paragraph 46: “The charger 210 of the controller 150 includes a battery and accumulates electric energy to charge the cart 100. The cart 100 is charged based on power provided by the power connector 290. At this time, the charger 210 charges based on a charge allocation, and the charge allocation is set for each cart under the control of the controller 250.”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the pushable transport cart system, comprising a controller, of Ishikawa to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, control logic for battery-to-battery charging in view of Kim. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Ishikawa and Kim because this would have achieved the desirable result of adjusting charging speed in consideration of states of batteries, as recognized by Kim [Kim Paragraph 18: “it is possible to adjust the charging speed of the carts based on priorities of carts determined in consideration of states of batteries and positions of the multiple carts, or battery properties.”].
Regarding Claim 2, Ishikawa teaches the pushable transport cart system of claim 1 , wherein a chassis frame of the first and second pushable transport carts comprises a U-shaped frame structure comprising a front base leg and two rearwardly diverging side legs [Ishikawa Fig. 1].
Regarding Claim 3, Ishikawa teaches the pushable transport cart system of claim 1, wherein one of the contact elements comprises a downward-facing contact surface and the other contact element comprises an upward-facing contact surface [Ishikawa Fig. 1, Reference Characters 14 and 20].
Regarding Claim 10, Ishikawa teaches the pushable transport cart system of claim 1 comprising a charge flow control unit, the charge flow control unit being connected between a plug and a plug socket or contact elements; connecting the plug or the plug socket or the contact elements to the storage device; in a pass-through mode of operation connecting the plug to the plug socket or the contact elements, but disconnecting the storage device from the plug or the plug socket or the contact elements, and in a charging operating mode disconnecting the plug from the plug socket or the contact elements, but providing the connection of the storage device to the plug or the plug socket or the contact elements [Ishikawa Paragraph 0009: “The measurement apparatus further includes a processor configured to detect at least one of a first state, in which the electricity storage device is fully charged, and a second state, in which the electricity storage device is fully discharged. The processor is further configured to, upon detection of said one of the first and second states, control the measurement circuit to start the first current and the second current, calculate a remaining amount of charge in the electricity storage device using the measured first current and the measured second current, and output the calculated remaining amount of power.”].
Regarding Claim 11, Ishikawa teaches the pushable transport cart system of claim 1 comprising a stockage or charging station which is connected to the first and second pushable transport carts, the first and second pushable transport carts being connected to one another in a line [Ishikawa Fig. 1; Ishikawa Paragraph 0011: “FIG. 1 illustrates the shopping cart 10 located above the power transmitting device 20 installed on the floor of a store.”].
Regarding Claim 12, Ishikawa teaches the pushable transport cart system of claim 1 comprising control logic executing at least one of the following functions: recognizing when the first pushable transport cart is mechanically and/or electrically connected to the second pushable transport cart, the stockage station or the charging station; detecting or determining the number of the at least first and second pushable transport carts connected in a line to each other or to the stockage station or to the charging station; and controlling an exchange of electric energy between the at least first and second pushable transport carts that are connected to each other but not to the stockage or charging station [Ishikawa Paragraph 0016: “The power receiving device 14 wirelessly receives the power transmitted by the power transmitting device 20.”; Ishikawa Paragraph 0069: “In ACT 13, the processor 147 starts measuring the current flowing out from the mobile battery 15 to measure the amount of charge flowing out of the mobile battery. The processor 147 controls, for example, the current detection circuit 16 to start measuring the current flowing from the mobile battery 15.”].
Regarding Claim 13, Ishikawa teaches a pushable transport cart system comprising a controller but does not teach selective charge flow management. Kim teaches the pushable transport cart system of claim 1 comprising control logic providing at least one of the following functions: executing a charge flow management which takes into account a loading quantity specific to a supermarket or a baggage transportation area; executing the charge flow management in which a demand parameter specific to a supermarket, a baggage transportation area, a time or a day of the week is taken into account, the demand parameter correlating with an expected demand of the at least first and second pushable transport carts used by the customers per time unit; executing the charge flow management, in which in the line of the at least first and second pushable transport carts connected to the stockage station or the charging station first the pushable transport cart of the at least first and second pushable transport carts furthest away from the stockage and/or charging station is charged until a threshold value of the charging status is reached, and then successively the with regard to the direction of the stockage station or the charging station neighboring pushable transport cart of the at least first and second pushable transport carts is charged; and executing the charge flow management, in which charging of the storage device of the first pushable transport cart takes place both from the storage device of the second pushable transport cart as well as from the charging station [Kim Paragraph 101: “In this process, the controller 350 of the power supply device 300 may set a reference battery capacity and may charge, with a high priority, carts having a battery having a less capacity than a reference battery capacity. In some examples, the controller 350 of the power supply device 300 may charge the cart at the rear (having higher connection sequence) with a highest priority when many carts have a battery having a less capacity than the reference battery capacity. That is, the controller 350 of the power supply device 300 preferentially charges the cart disposed at the rear.”; Kim Paragraph 48: “The power supply device 300 may set the magnitude of electrical energy allocated for charging for each cart based on charge demand information received from each of carts and properties of each of carts. The information on charge allocation is numerical information allocated by the cart from the power supply device to charge performed by the charger 210.”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the pushable transport cart system, comprising a controller, of Ishikawa to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, charge control logic in view of Kim. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Ishikawa and Kim because this would have achieved the desirable result of improving efficiency of charging the carts, as recognized by Kim [Kim Paragraph 19: “one power supply device may charge the multiple carts to thereby improve efficiency of charging of carts.”].
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa et al. (US 20210221419 A1) (hereinafter “Ishikawa”) in view of Kim et al. (US 11518263 B2) (hereinafter “Kim”) and further in view of VanHorn (US 5773954 A). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Ishikawa and Kim teaches a pushable transport cart system comprising two contact elements, but does not teach a contact element being adjustable. VanHorn teaches the pushable transport cart system of claim 1 , wherein at least one of the contact elements is adjustable with regard to its position and/or its orientation and/or its elasticity and/or its bias and/or an elasticity or spring constant of a resilient support [VanHorn Figs. 24 and 25, Reference Character 2064 (typ); VanHorn Paragraph 49: “The element 2050 is provided, preferably near the upper and lower walls 2120, 2122 thereof, with electrical contacts 2064 biased in an outward direction by springs 2066. The contacts 2064 are shown pinned at one end to connection element 2050 so as to pivot outward under force of springs 2066 toward the interior surfaces 2130, 2140 of guide rail walls 2120, 2122. At least a portion of the interior surfaces 2130, 2140 is provided with (or formed of) a conductive material such that electrical current will be conducted from the charging guide rail 2110 to the connection element 2050”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the pushable transport cart system, comprising contact elements, of the combination of Ishikawa and Kim to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, adjustable position in view of VanHorn. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Ishikawa, Kim, and VanHorn because this would have achieved the desirable result of ensuring that electrical current will be conducted from the guide rail to the connection element, as recognized by VanHorn [VanHorn Paragraph 19: “At least a portion of the interior surfaces 2130, 2140 is provided with (or formed of) a conductive material such that electrical current will be conducted from the charging guide rail 2110 to the connection element 2050.”].
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa et al. (US 20210221419 A1) (hereinafter “Ishikawa”) in view of Kim et al. (US 11518263 B2) (hereinafter “Kim”) and further in view of Otterson (US 7448476 B2). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Ishikawa and Kim teaches a pushable transport cart system but does not teach a fixing brake. Otterson teaches the pushable transport cart system of claim 1 , wherein the first and second pushable transport carts comprise a fixing brake which can be released via an actuation element, wherein the actuation element is biased by a spring device into a parking position in which the fixing brake is actuated, wherein the actuation element can be moved into a release position in a movement-controlled manner by an insertion movement of the first pushable transport cart into the second pushable transport cart against the bias by the spring device, and at least one of the contact elements is arranged on the actuation element [Otterson Fig. 4, Reference Characters 30 (fixing brake), 92 (actuation element), and 106 (spring); Otterson Paragraph 9: “a durable cart brake mechanism that will automatically engage when left unattended, and be configured for receipt within guided wheel slots of return stations. The brake must also disengage when nested with another cart to facilitate en masse cart movement.”; Otterson Paragraph 63: “The actuation assembly 94 includes an actuation or brake rod 92, a spring 106, and a brake rod center piece 110.”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the pushable transport cart assembly of the combination of Ishikawa and Kim to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a fixing brake in view of Otterson. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Ishikawa, Kim, and Otterson because this would have achieved the desirable result of preventing damage to persons and property, as recognized by Otterson [Otterson Paragraph 5: “unrestrained carts can roll freely and cause damage to both persons and property.”].
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa et al. (US 20210221419 A1) (hereinafter “Ishikawa”) in view of Kim et al. (US 11518263 B2) (hereinafter “Kim”) and further in view of Perrier et al. (US 20060254861 A1) (hereinafter “Perrier”). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Ishikawa and Kim teaches a pushable transport cart but does not teach a mechanical connecting device. Perrier teaches the pushable transport cart system of claim 1, with a mechanical connecting device, by which the first pushable transport cart can be mechanically connected to the second pushable transport cart and/or a stockage and/or charging station, wherein the mechanical connecting device and the first electric connecting device are combined and the mechanical connecting device and the first electric connecting device are configured in such a way that when the mechanical connecting device of the first pushable transport cart is mechanically connected to the mechanical connecting device of the second pushable transport cart or the stockage and/or charging station, at least one electric connection is created between the first electric connecting device of the first pushable transport cart and the first electric connecting device of the second pushable transport cart or the stockage and/or charging station, the at least one created electric connection serving for at least one of an electric power exchange, a signal exchange and a data exchange [Perrier Figs. 18-20; Perrier Paragraph 0048: “FIG. 18 illustrates a charging system integrated into a daisy chain cart security system. In such a security system, nested carts are secured by inserting a member 114 chained to one cart into a slot 116 on an adjacent cart.”; Perrier Paragraph 0049: “As illustrated in FIGS. 19 and 20, member 114 includes a hasp 115 that connects to a locking mechanism in slot 116 and electrical contacts 118 that engage electrical contacts 120 in slot 116 to electrically connect two carts. Electrical contacts 120 in slot 116 are in turn connected by wire 121 to the electrical contacts 118 of a member chained to that cart which can be inserted into a slot 116 of an adjacent cart in a similar manner to electrically connect and mutually secure a plurality of nested carts in series.”; Perrier Paragraph 0049: “Electrical contacts 120 in slot 116 are in turn connected by wire 121 to the electrical contacts 118 of a member chained to that cart which can be inserted into a slot 116 of an adjacent cart in a similar manner to electrically connect and mutually secure a plurality of nested carts in series.”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the pushable transport cart system of the combination of Ishikawa, Kim, and Perrier to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a mechanical connecting device in view of Perrier. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Ishikawa, Kim, and Perrier because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing a security system for the pushable transport cart system, as recognized by Perrier [Perrier Paragraph 0048: “FIG. 18 illustrates a charging system integrated into a daisy chain cart security system.”].
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa et al. (US 20210221419 A1) (hereinafter “Ishikawa”) in view of Kim et al. (US 11518263 B2) (hereinafter “Kim”), further in view of Perrier et al. (US 20060254861 A1) (hereinafter “Perrier”), and further in view of Roet (US 20170185950 A1). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Ishikawa, Kim, and Perrier teaches a pushable transport cart comprising connectors but does not teach redundant connectors. Roet teaches the pushable transport cart system of claim 6, wherein the first electric connecting device comprises redundant connectors, connector bars, or interfaces, which can be used in different mounting orientations of the mechanical connecting device [Roet Fig. 1, Reference Characters 23 and 16; Roet Paragraph 0020: “The power pack PP-1 may include a rechargeable apparatus battery 11 and a bundle of apparatus cables 13 terminated by apparatus connectors 16 which may be coupled intermediate the apparatus battery 11 and an at least one electronic device 14”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the pushable transport cart system, comprising connectors, of the combination of Ishikawa, Kim, and Perrier to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, redundant connectors in view of Roet. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Ishikawa, Kim, Perrier, and Roet because this would have achieved the desirable result of enabling a user to power his own apparatus, as recognized by Roet [Roet Paragraph 0020: “The apparatus connectors 16, here three such connectors, are configured each one to connect to a different type or a different design of charging port of an electronic device 14 which may be a portable or a mobile electronic device, or a cart-fixed electronic device requiring electrical power for operation. The wording ‘electronic device’ may include cell phones, displays screens, tablets, laptops, and the like. A user of a cart C, not shown, may thus take advantage of the cart apparatus module I to power one of his own personal electronic apparatus 14 such as a cellular phone or a tablet for example.”].
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Ishikawa, Kim, and Perrier teaches a pushable transport cart comprising an electric connecting device but does not teach a further electric connecting device. Roet teaches the pushable transport cart system of claim 6 comprising a further electric connecting device which is located at a distance from the first electric connecting device and the mechanical connecting device [Roet Fig. 1, Reference Characters 23 and 16; Roet Paragraph 0020: “The power pack PP-1 may include a rechargeable apparatus battery 11 and a bundle of apparatus cables 13 terminated by apparatus connectors 16 which may be coupled intermediate the apparatus battery 11 and an at least one electronic device 14”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the pushable transport cart system, comprising connectors, of the combination of Ishikawa, Kim, and Perrier to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, redundant connectors in view of Roet. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Ishikawa, Kim, Perrier, and Roet because this would have achieved the desirable result of enabling a user to power his own apparatus, as recognized by Roet [Roet Paragraph 0020: “The apparatus connectors 16, here three such connectors, are configured each one to connect to a different type or a different design of charging port of an electronic device 14 which may be a portable or a mobile electronic device, or a cart-fixed electronic device requiring electrical power for operation. The wording ‘electronic device’ may include cell phones, displays screens, tablets, laptops, and the like. A user of a cart C, not shown, may thus take advantage of the cart apparatus module I to power one of his own personal electronic apparatus 14 such as a cellular phone or a tablet for example.”].
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Ishikawa, Kim, and Perrier teaches a pushable transport cart comprising a storage device but does not teach a storage release device. Roet teaches the pushable transport cart system of claim 6 comprising a storage release device, which in a release position connects the storage device to a power source by contact elements or the first or second electric connecting device in order to change a charge state of the storage device; and in a disconnected position electrically isolates the storage device from the power source [Roet Fig. 1, Reference Character 27; Roet Paragraph 0023: “(in addition) instead of having electrical cables 27 for coupling between successive power packs PP-1, use may be made of a rigid plug and socket arrangement whereby the mere stacking of carts C mutually couples the succession of power packs in electrical communication for simultaneous battery 11 recharge.”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the pushable transport cart system, comprising a storage device, of the combination of Ishikawa, Kim, and Perrier to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a storage release device in view of Roet. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Ishikawa, Kim, Perrier, and Roet because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing charger attachment options, as recognized by Roet [Roet Paragraph 0022: “The stack charger 25 may be attached to a fixed structure, such as a wall of a building, or may be portable, and may be connected to an energized electrical circuit, such as the electric mains.”].
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa et al. (US 20210221419 A1) (hereinafter “Ishikawa”) in view of Kim et al. (US 11518263 B2) (hereinafter “Kim”) and further in view of Amemura et al. (JP 2018201327 A) (hereinafter “Amemura”). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Ishikawa and Kim teaches a pushable transport cart but does not teach separation detection. Amemura teaches the pushable transport cart system of claim 1 comprising control logic which detects at least one of the following: a separation of the first pushable transport cart from the second pushable transport cart or from the stockage station or the charging station; a separation of the mechanical connecting device of the first pushable transport cart from the mechanical connecting device of the other pushable transport cart or from the stockage station or from the charging station; or a separation of the electric connecting devices of the first pushable transport cart from the electric connecting device of the second pushable transport cart or from the stockage station or from the charging station [Amemura Fig. 9, Amemura Paragraph 0092: “in each of the shopping baskets 204 to 206, for example, when the supply of the charging power Pc1 is stopped, the separation from the charging target group 200 is detected, and its own address is initialized, that is, the temporary address is set to“0xFE”. Here, the interrupt request signal Si1 may be used not only to detect the presence/absence of connection between adjacent lower nodes, but also to detect the presence/absence of connection between adjacent upper nodes. In this case, in each of the shopping baskets 204 to 206, for example, the departure from the charging target group 200 may be detected by an interrupt request signal Si <b> 1 from an adjacent upper node, and its own address may be initialized. Further, in the third stage shopping basket 203, it is recognized that the fourth to sixth stage shopping baskets 204 to 206 have been taken out when the interrupt request signal Si1 from the fourth stage shopping basket 204 is lost.”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the pushable transport cart system, comprising a controller, of the combination of Ishikawa and Kim to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, separation detection in view of Amemura. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Ishikawa, Kim, and Amemura because this would have achieved the desirable result of reducing power supply cost, as recognized by Amemura [Amemura 0094: “a large-capacity power supply facility is required, and for example, the cost of the power supply facility increases. Therefore, a power supply system that can charge a plurality of shopping baskets 2 with a relatively small capacity power supply facility is desired.”].
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa et al. (US 20210221419 A1) (hereinafter “Ishikawa”) in view of Kim et al. (US 11518263 B2) (hereinafter “Kim”), further in view of Amemura et al. (JP 2018201327 A) (hereinafter “Amemura”), and further in view of Matsukawa et al. (US 10574078 B2) (hereinafter “Matsukawa”). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Ishikawa, Kim, and Amemura teaches a pushable transport cart but does not teach providing the user with information regarding shopping product status. Matsukawa teaches the pushable transport cart system of claim 14 comprising control logic which in response to detecting on the basis of a signal from a sensor that a shopping product or an object of the user is still on the first or second pushable transport cart and not detecting a separation, the system provides the user with information that a shopping product or an object of the user is still on the first or second pushable transport cart [Matsukawa Paragraph 3: “The transaction terminal device possesses a receiver circuit configured to receive the one or more pieces of goods information, a weighing scale configured to weigh the one or more pieces of goods put in the basket, and a control unit configured to compare a measured value weighed by the weighing scale with one or more pieces of weight data corresponding to the one or more pieces of goods information. The transaction terminal device will carry out a checkout process when the measured value by the weighing scale matches a total weight of the one or more pieces of weight data.”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the pushable transport cart system of the combination of Ishikawa, Kim, and Amemura to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a sensor in view of Matsukawa. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Ishikawa, Kim, Amemura, and Matsukawa because this would have achieved the desirable result of preventing shopping products to be left in the cart, as recognized by Matsukawa [Matsukawa Paragraph 3: “The transaction terminal device will carry out a checkout process when the measured value by the weighing scale matches a total weight of the one or more pieces of weight data.”].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL T WALSH whose telephone number is 303-297-4351. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am - 5:30 pm ET.
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, J. Allen Shriver II, can be reached at 303-297-4337. 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.
/MICHAEL T. WALSH/Examiner, Art Unit 3613
Prosecution Insights