DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1, 9, 17, and 20 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “control unit” in claims 1-16.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1, 5-9, 13-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamada (US 2022/0309485), cited by applicant in IDS dated 07/12/2024, in view of Musiani et al. (US 2024/0242503, hereinafter “Musiani”).
In regards to claim 1, Hamada teaches a cart-based point-of-sale terminal, comprising:
a display device mounted on a shopping cart (Hamada; Fig. 3); and
a control unit configured to:
register items of merchandise for purchase in a sales transaction (Hamada; pars [0074]-[0075], [0087]; Fig. 7, ACT6, Fig. 8), and
cause the display device to display a shopping basket notification to a user before a user can register any items of merchandise (Hamada; pars [0063], [0073], Fig. 7, ACT1).
Hamada does not explicitly teach wherein the shopping basket notification is one of:
a notification prompting the user to place a shopping basket on the shopping cart, a notification prompting the user to check whether a shopping basket has been placed on the shopping cart, and a notification prompting the user to correctly place a shopping basket on the shopping cart.
Musiani teaches a shopping basket notification being one of:
a notification prompting the user to place a shopping basket on the shopping cart, a notification prompting the user to check whether a shopping basket has been placed on the shopping cart, and a notification prompting the user to correctly place a shopping basket on the shopping cart (Musiani; pars [0200], [0204]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize feature of Musiani, whereby it is detected if a shopping basket is placed in the shopping cart properly, in the cart-based point-of-sale terminal of Hamada, by using the weight sensors of Hamada (Hamada; [0039], [0077]), in order to be able to detect when a shopping basket has been placed properly in the shopping cart and notify the user, using the display screen of Hamada, to reposition the basket, if necessary, for accurate shopping (Musiani; pars [0200], [0204]).
In regards to claim 5, Hamada in view of Musiani teaches the cart-based point-of-sale terminal according to claim 1, wherein the control unit is further configured to:
receive weight detection output from a weight sensor on the shopping cart (Hamada; Fig. 3, pars [0039], [0077]), wherein the display device is caused to display the shopping basket notification to the user when the weight detection output is received before a start of merchandise registration and the weight detection output corresponds to an expected weight change of an empty shopping basket cart (This is a contingent limitation that is not required by the claim as presently written. Hamada teaches the structure required to perform the function, i.e. the control unit. MPEP 2111.04.).
In regards to claim 6, Hamada in view of Musiani teaches the cart-based point-of-sale terminal according to claim 1, wherein the control unit is further configured to:
receive weight detection output from a weight sensor on the shopping cart (Hamada; Fig. 3, pars [0039], [0077]), and cause the display device to display a warning notification different from the shopping basket notification when the weight detection output indicates a weight greater than an expected weight change of an empty shopping basket has been placed on the shopping cart (Hamada, Fig. 12; However, it is noted that this is a contingent limitation that is not required by the claim as presently written. MPEP 2111.04.).
In regards to claim 7, Hamada in view of Musiani teaches the cart-based point-of-sale terminal according to claim 1, wherein the control unit is further configured to: receive weight detection output from a weight sensor on the shopping cart (Hamada; Fig. 3, pars [0039], [0077]), and cause the display device to display a warning notification different from the shopping basket notification when the weight detection output indicates repeated changes in weight during a fixed period of time (Hamada, Fig. 9, par [0019]; However, it is noted that this is a contingent limitation that is not required by the claim as presently written. MPEP 2111.04.).
In regards to claim 8, Hamada in view of Musiani teaches the cart-based point-of-sale terminal according to claim 1, further comprising:
a weight sensor on the shopping cart (Hamada; Figs. 2, 3), wherein
the control unit is further configured to:
receive weight detection output from the weight sensor (Hamada; Fig. 3, pars [0039], [0077]).
In regards to claim 9, Hamada teaches a cart-based point-of-sale system, comprising:
a cart (Hamada; Fig. 3);
a weighing device on the cart (Hamada; Figs. 2, 3);
a product scanner on the cart (Hamada; Figs. 2, 3);
a display device on the cart (Hamada; Fig. 3); and
a point-of-sale terminal on the cart (Hamada; Figs. 2, 3) and including a control unit configured to:
register items of merchandise for purchase in a sales transaction based on input from the product scanner (Hamada; pars [0074]-[0075], [0087]; Fig. 7, ACT6, Fig. 8), and
cause the display device to display a shopping basket notification to a user before a user can register any items of merchandise (Hamada; pars [0063], [0073], Fig. 7, ACT1).
Hamada does not explicitly teach wherein the shopping basket notification is one of:
a notification prompting the user to place a shopping basket on the shopping cart, a notification prompting the user to check whether a shopping basket has been placed on the shopping cart, and a notification prompting the user to correctly place a shopping basket on the shopping cart.
Musiani teaches a shopping basket notification being one of:
a notification prompting the user to place a shopping basket on the shopping cart, a notification prompting the user to check whether a shopping basket has been placed on the shopping cart, and a notification prompting the user to correctly place a shopping basket on the shopping cart (Musiani; pars [0200], [0204]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize feature of Musiani, whereby it is detected if a shopping basket is placed in the shopping cart properly, in the cart-based point-of-sale terminal of Hamada, by using the weight sensors of Hamada (Hamada; [0039], [0077]), in order to be able to detect when a shopping basket has been placed properly in the shopping cart and notify the user, using the display screen of Hamada, to reposition the basket, if necessary, for accurate shopping (Musiani; pars [0200], [0204]).
Claims 13-15 are rejected with the same rationale as claims 5-7, respectively.
In regards to claim 16, Hamada in view of Musiani teaches the cart-based point-of-sale system according to claim 9, wherein the point-of-sale terminal further includes:
a communication interface connected to a server device (Hamada; pars [0019], [0078]), and
the control unit registers items of merchandise for purchase in the sales transaction by sending merchandise codes to the server device (Hamada; pars [0019], [0077]).
In regards to claim 17, Hamada teaches a method for a cart-based point-of-sale terminal, the method comprising:
causing a display device mounted on a shopping cart to display a shopping basket notification to a user before a user can register items of merchandise for purchase in a sales transaction (Hamada; pars [0063], [0073], Fig. 7, ACT1); and
registering an item of merchandise for purchase in the sales transaction after the shopping basket notification is cleared from the display device (Hamada; pars [0074]-[0075], [0087]; Fig. 7, ACT6, Fig. 8).
Hamada does not explicitly teach wherein the shopping basket notification is one of:
a notification prompting the user to place a shopping basket on the shopping cart, a notification prompting the user to check whether a shopping basket has been placed on the shopping cart, and a notification prompting the user to correctly place a shopping basket on the shopping cart.
Musiani teaches a shopping basket notification being one of:
a notification prompting the user to place a shopping basket on the shopping cart, a notification prompting the user to check whether a shopping basket has been placed on the shopping cart, and a notification prompting the user to correctly place a shopping basket on the shopping cart (Musiani; pars [0200], [0204]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize feature of Musiani, whereby it is detected if a shopping basket is placed in the shopping cart properly, in the cart-based point-of-sale terminal of Hamada, by using the weight sensors of Hamada (Hamada; [0039], [0077]), in order to be able to detect when a shopping basket has been placed properly in the shopping cart and notify the user, using the display screen of Hamada, to reposition the basket, if necessary, for accurate shopping (Musiani; pars [0200], [0204]).
Claim 20 is rejected with the same rationale as claim 5.
Claims 2-4, 10-12, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamada in view of Musiani, further in view of Andronic et al. (US 2022/0207504, hereinafter “Andronic”).
In regards to claim 2, Hamada in view of Musiani teaches the cart-based point-of-sale terminal according to claim 1, wherein the control unit is further configured to: receive weight detection output from a weight sensor on the shopping cart (Hamada; Fig. 3, pars [0039], [0077]).
Hamada does not explicitly teach wherein the control unit is further configured to: determine whether a shopping basket has been placed on the shopping cart based on the weight detection output from the weight sensor.
Andronic teaches determining whether a shopping basket has been placed on a support plate based on the weight detection output from a weight sensor (Andronic; pars [0064], [0096]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize feature of Andronic, whereby it is detected if a shopping basket is placed in the weighing area, in the in the cart-based point-of-sale terminal of Hamada, in order to be able to detect when a shopping basket has been placed in the shopping cart (Andronic; par [0096]). Moreover, this would amount to a simple substitution of using the weighing mechanism of Hamada to detect the weight of items of merchandise with using it to detect the weight of a shopping basket and would yield predictable results (MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
In regards to claim 3, Hamada in view of Musiani, further in view of Andronic teaches the cart-based point-of-sale terminal according to claim 2, wherein the control unit is further configured to:
cause the display device to end display of the shopping basket notification when it is determined the shopping basket has been placed on the shopping cart (This is a contingent limitation that is not required by the claim as presently written. Claim 2 requires determining whether a shopping basket has been placed on the cart and this claim further defines a scenario which is not required. The combination of Hamada in view Andronic teaches the structure required to perform the function, i.e. the control unit. MPEP 2111.04.).
In regards to claim 4, Hamada in view of Musiani, further in view of Andronic teaches the cart-based point-of-sale terminal according to claim 2, wherein the control unit is further configured to:
cause the display device to start display of the shopping basket notification when it is determined that the shopping basket has been placed on the shopping cart (Andronic; par [0098] – starts transaction with customer after basket is detected, which could obviously include customer login screen; However, it is noted that this is a contingent limitation that is not required by the claim as presently written. Claim 2 requires determining whether a shopping basket has been placed on the cart and this claim further defines a scenario which is not required. MPEP 2111.04.).
Claims 10-12 are rejected with the same rationale as claims 2-4, respectively.
Claims 18-19 are rejected with the same rationale as claims 2-3, respectively.
Response to Arguments
The objection to the title has been withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments.
The 35 USC 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejections of claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kavita Stanley whose telephone number is (571)272-8352. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am-6pm.
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, Cordelia (Dede) Zecher can be reached at 571-272-7771. 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.
/KAVITA STANLEY/
Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2153
Prosecution Insights