FINAL REJECTION
Examiner’s Remarks
Regarding the amendment filed 8/5/2025:
The amendments to claims 1, 3, 5, 9-11, 14, 18 and 20 are acknowledged and accepted.
The cancelation of claims 2, 4, 12, 13 and 19 is acknowledged and accepted.
The addition of new claims 21-24 is acknowledged and accepted.
The amendment to the title is acknowledged and accepted.
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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on 11/1/2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the JP2023-187426 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 11, 18 and 24 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “and read identification information from one or more wireless tags” in lines 19-20. It appears the language should be “and read the identification information from the one or more wireless tags” for proper antecedent basis.
Claim 11 recites “and reading identification information from one or more wireless tags” in lines 18-19. It appears the language should be “and reading the identification information from the one or more wireless tags” for proper antecedent basis.
Claim 18 recites “and reading identification information from one or more wireless tags” in lines 21-22. It appears the language should be “and reading the identification information from the one or more wireless tags” for proper antecedent basis.
Claim 24 recites “backset” in lines 5 and 8. It appears “backset” should be “basket”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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:
“a moving mechanism configured to move the one or more antennas along one or more surfaces of the accommodation space” in claims 1, 11 and 18.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 21 recites “the sensors include a first sensor that is positioned to face the upper portion of the accommodation space in a first direction and a second sensor that is positioned to face the lower portion of the accommodation space in the first direction”. The specification describes an embodiment where sensors (photo interrupter 36 or ultrasonic sensor 39) are in the accommodation space in positions that correspond to the upper rack and lower rack, not facing the accommodation space ([0053]-[0057]). Furthermore, the specification describes another embodiment where sensors (cameras) being in the accommodation space facing the shopping basket/upper rack/lower rack ([0059]). As such, the specification does not appear to describe that sensors facing the upper portion and the lower portion of the accommodation space but rather, the sensors being in the accommodation space. Therefore, this limitation is considered new matter, and fails to comply with the written description requirement.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5-11, 14-18 and 20-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “detect a presence of one or more objects in upper and lower portions of the accommodation space”/“detecting a presence of the one or more objects in upper and lower portions of the accommodation space”. It is not clear if the “one or more objects” is with respect to one or more wireless tags, or if the “one or more objects” is different than the one or more wireless tags, since the one or more antennas read information from one or more wireless tags since the antennas move along one or more surfaces of the accommodation space, and thus appear to read the one or more wireless tags within the accommodation space. Please clarify. Further, it is noted that claim 5 recites “when the shopping cart is placed in the accommodation space and the shopping cart includes an upper rack and a lower rack, the one or more antennas are moved to face spaces above the upper rack and the lower rack of the shopping cart”. As such, it is not clear if the “one or more objects” would refer to the “upper rack” and “lower rack” of the shopping cart. Please clarify. For examination purposes, the “one or more objects” will be interpreted as the wireless tags.
Claims 11 and 18 recite “detect a presence of one or more objects in the accommodation space, each of the plurality of sensors being positioned to face a corresponding one of the upper and lower racks of the shopping cart”/“detecting one or more objects in the accommodation space”. The claim further recites reading information from one or more wireless tags. It is not clear if the “one or more objects” is with respect to one or more wireless tags or with respect to the upper and lower racks of the shopping cart/one or more shopping baskets, or something else. Please clarify. If with respect to the upper/lower racks or the wireless tags, proper antecedent basis is needed. If it is with respect to something else, the claim language needs to better differentiate the “one or more objects” from these. For examination purposes, the one or more objects” will be interpreted as the upper and lower racks.
Claims not specifically addressed are indefinite due to their dependency.
Examiner’s Remarks
With respect to claim(s) 1, 3, 5-11, 14-18 and 20-24, the examiner makes no prior art rejection. However, these claims are not allowable pursuant to the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 1st paragraph, (where applicable), and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3, 5-11, 14-18 and 20-24 have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection in view of the amendments to claims 1, 11 and 18 (e.g. a moving mechanism configured to move the one or more antennas along one or more surfaces of the accommodation space; plurality of sensors configured to detect a presence of one or more objects in upper and lower portions of the accommodation space; in response to detecting one or more objects by one or more of the plurality of sensors, set a moving range of the one or more antennas based on a detection result of each of the one or more of the plurality of sensors, control the moving mechanism to move the one or more antennas along the one or more surfaces within the moving range) and claims 11 and 18 (e.g. a moving mechanism configured to move the one or more antennas along one or more surfaces of the accommodation space; plurality of sensors configured to detect a presence of one or more objects in the accommodation space, each of the plurality of sensors being positioned to face a corresponding one of the upper and lower racks of the shopping cart; in response to detecting one or more objects by one or more of the plurality of sensors, setting a moving range of the one or more antennas based on a detection result of each of the one or more of the plurality of sensors, controlling the moving mechanism to move the one or more antennas along the one or more surfaces within the moving range).
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.
Telephone/Fax Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUEZU ELLIS whose telephone number is (571)272-2868. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 11:00 am - 7:00 pm 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, Michael Lee can be reached at (571)272-2398. 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.
/SUEZU ELLIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876