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 .
Specification
A substitute specification in proper idiomatic American English and in compliance with 37 CFR 1.52(a) and (b) is required. The substitute specification filed must be accompanied by a statement that it contains no new matter.
Specifically, there are terms within the disclosure specification, title, and the claims that utilize the British English versions of various words which are spelled differently than their English twins. Use of non-American English spelling in applications examined by U.S. Patent Examiners poses an examination risk during the search of the application and/or in instances where the instant application could serve as a potential prior art reference in a prior art rejection made against the claims of a future-filed application from a potential competitor.
For example, a search of ‘trolley$2 NEAR4 shop$4’ yields 33,468 prior art references in the internal search software used by U.S. Patent Examiners. When an identical search is executed, but ‘trolley’ is replaced with the American English twin ‘cart$2’ and input as ‘cart$2 NEAR4 shop$4’, the number of prior art reference results jump to 153,191 prior art references. When the results are combined to require both spellings, the results are 16,391 common prior art references. If the Examiner of the instant application only searches for a shopping ‘trolley’ (as titled, disclosed, and claimed in this application, 100k+ references will not appear in the search where only ‘trolley’ is used.
Similarly, absence of the American English term ‘cart’ within the instant application poses a significant risk of missing out on being included along with 100k + other potential prior art references for that pertain to a ‘shopping cart’ during patentability determinations if an Examiner fails to include ‘trolley’ as a search term in the search of a potential future-filed application that covers substantially the same subject matter as the instant application. The absence of the American English spellings of the claimed, disclosed, and/or titled subject matter may not be uncovered in a claims search, a text search, and/or a title search since the British versions of the words are not commonly used or searched by U.S. Examiners. A search for only the American English terms would eliminate the instant application from the search results and subsequent consideration as prior art due to the British spelling of the words in the application and absence of American English ‘hit words’ in this application.
Non-mitigation of this risk could result in the instant application not appearing in a prior art search of any future-filed applications related to the subject matter of the instant application, which could expose Applicant to costly and time-consuming legal battles. A short list of the terms which are objected to are included below:
Where “trolley” appears in the disclosure, Applicant should amend the specification, claims, and title to recite the American English twin word, “cart,” in its place – or – add the word “cart” in an ‘or’ format with the word “trolley” to ensure that both words would appear in any future text search of the instant application.
Where “centre” appears in the disclosure, Applicant should amend the specification and claims to recite the American English spelling of the word, “center,” in its place – or – add the word “center” in an ‘or’ format with the word “centre” to ensure that both words would appear in any future text search of the instant application.
Where “colours” appears in the disclosure, Applicant should amend the specification and claims to recite the American English spelling of the word, “colors,” in its place – or – add the word “colors” in an ‘or’ format with the word “colours” to ensure that both words would appear in any future text search of the instant application.
The specification, title, and claims are being objected to as a matter of protection for Applicant as outlined in MPEP 606 “Title of Invention,” with specific attention being drawn toward MPEP 606.01 (covering the importance of accepting Examiner-recommended title changes to provide technical accuracy), which states:
Where the title is not descriptive of the invention claimed, the examiner should require the substitution of a new title that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. Form paragraphs 6.11 and 6.11.01 may be used.
This may result in slightly longer titles, but the loss in brevity of title will be more than offset by the gain in its informative value in indexing, classifying, searching, etc. If a satisfactory title is not supplied by the applicant, the examiner may, at the time of allowance, change the title by an examiner’s amendment. See MPEP § 1302.04. When the Technology Center (TC) technical support staff prepares the application for issue and sees that the title has been changed, the TC technical support staff will make the required change in the Office computer record systems.
Since many Examiners at the USPTO use American English during text searching as a means for uncovering prior art and for searching classification/indexing areas, it is strongly recommended that Applicant file a substitute specification which at least adds the American English spelling of the twin words which appear in the specification, title, and claims to at least the claims and specification, but, preferably, also the title.
The title of the invention is not technically accurate due to the usage of British English. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: SHOPPING CART OR TROLLEY WITH SMART SYSTEM.
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.
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 weight detection unit” of claim 1 at least disclosed in the detailed description of the invention.
“A lighting unit” of claim 5 at least disclosed in the detailed description of the invention.
“A payment unit” of claim 7 at least disclosed in the detailed description of the invention.
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 Objections
Claims 1-7 are objected to because of the following informalities: The claims recite the British English versions of the words listed supra. The claims recite the terms listed below along with the American English version of each word that is suggested to be added and recited in an ‘or’ format – or – to replace the British English words entirely. The claims terms and their suggested accompaniments or replacements are as follows:
Regarding claims 1-7: Where “trolley” appears in the disclosure, Applicant should amend the specification, claims, and title to recite the American English twin word, “cart,” in its place – or – add the word “cart” in an ‘or’ format with the word “trolley” to ensure that both words appear in a text search of the instant application.
Regarding claim 1: Where “centre” appears in the disclosure, Applicant should amend the specification and claims to recite the American English spelling of the word, “center,” in its place – or – add the word “center” in an ‘or’ format with the word “centre” to ensure that both words appear in a text search of the instant application.
Regarding claim 5: Where “colours” appears in the disclosure, Applicant should amend the specification and claims to recite the American English spelling of the word, “colors,” in its place – or – add the word “colors” in an ‘or’ format with the word “colours” to ensure that both words appear in a text search of the instant application.
Amendments to the claims to either include the American English versions (for example, reciting ‘A shopping trolley or cart’) along with the currently claimed British English versions or to replace the British English versions of the word with their American twin versions is strongly recommended. Appropriate correction is required.
The claims are replete with minor antecedent basis issues (for example, claim 1 “as hopping basket” and later refers to the shopping basket as, “basket.” Applicant is requested to review claim terms and make appropriate adjustments to promote consistency within the claim terms to remove ambiguities for increased clarity.
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.
Claims 1-7 are 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.
In claim 1, the recited weight detection unit does not have sufficient written description related to the components, orientation, or any other identifying structure which would describe the components of the weight detection unit. The metes and bounds of Applicant’s intended coverage for this limitation does not rely upon sufficient written description to show possession of the unit.
Claims 2-7 are also rejected as inheriting the deficiencies outlined in the rejection of claim 1 supra.
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 1-7 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.
Claims 1 and 3 recite the limitations -
“Shopping trolley” in claim 1.
“Data centre” in claim 1.
“The shopping basket” in claim 1
“The product” in claim 1.
“The screen” in claim 1.
“The trolley wheels” in claim 3.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims.
Claim 2 recites a “reader that reads the barcode of the product to identify the product,” but is unclear as to whether the barcode scanner is part of the previously claimed cart, part of the previously claimed mobile device, or a separate element unto itself. The claim creates confusion as to the orientation of the barcode scanner within the previously claimed cart system.
Similarly, based on the absence of structural elements and/or linking of the scanner to the cart system of the preceding claim or any positive recitation of the scanner being unambiguously a separate unit, it is unclear as to what associated with the barcode scanner and its orientation to the previously claimed system.
The claim limitation “the weight detection unit” in claim 1 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The wight detection unit is merely listed and referred to during a shopping process, but does not contemplate any components or specific orientation within the cart system. Because the invocation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) requires the Examiner to search the specification to identify the claimed subject matter and its equivalents, the specification must outline some type of element identifying structure. Absent sufficient structure the claims are deemed to be indefinite due to lack of supporting details in the disclosure for the unit. Applicant’s own specification is void of detail pertaining to the claimed weighing unit. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
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, 2, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2023/0087587 to Yang et al. in view of U.S. 2023/0143479 to Hagen et al.
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Yang discloses a shopping trolley with smart system, comprising:
a sensor that detects products being placed in or removed from the shopping basket (At least motion sensor(s) 117 to detect when a merchandise item 10 is being placed into or removed from cart 112; Par. [0045]);
a weight detection unit that detects the weight change when products are placed in or removed from the basket (At least a weight sensor 116 (e.g., load receiver) for weighing merchandise items 10 in cart 112; Par. [0045]);
a camera that receives and transmits images of the product in order to identify the product left in the basket (At least camera(s) 114, in various embodiments, may be pointed inwards towards the cargo area of cart 112 and located such that at least one of the camera(s) will capture an image of identifier 12 on merchandise item 10 as it is placed into cart 112; Par. [0045]; Fig. 2-4); and
a control unit that receives images from the camera, performs product recognition and matching processes in the data centre, and displays the information about the products to the customer via the screen thereon (At least self-checkout vehicle system 100 may include processor(s) 120 configured with a computer vision module 130 for identifying merchandise item 10, an event module 140 for performing various functions associated with weighing and determining the cost of merchandise item 10, and a user experience module 150 for presenting shopping-related information to the shopper on display terminal 118; Par. [0045-0059]).
However, Yang does not appear to expressly disclose the recited code system.
Nevertheless, Hagen teaches a code located on the shopping trolley and defined specifically for each shopping trolley in the data centre (At least cart identifier, ; Par. [0181]), which enables the shopping trolley to be activated after being read by the application installed on the customer's mobile device (At least the mobile device that can scan a cart identifier (e.g. a barcode, a QR code, etc.) using a mobile application on the device, the mobile device and cart can include establishing a local network; Par. [0181]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing to have modified the cart system of Yang to have an activation code for a mobile device, as taught by Hagen, in order to personalize the cart system and shopping experience for improved store security and providing greater accuracy in measuring/associating items leaving the store with customers.
Regarding claim 2, as best understood, the previous combination of Yang / Hagel discloses the claimed invention except for the barcode reader.
Nevertheless, Hagen also teaches a reader that reads the barcode if the product to identify the product (At least the barcode scanner and identifiers; Par, [0052, 0083, 0128]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing to have modified the cart system of Yang to have a barcode reader, as taught by Hagen, in order to provide item information for the customer to know item information and pricing at the cart system for added shopping convenience to improve the shopping experience.
Regarding claim 5, as best understood, the previous combination of Yang/Hagen discloses the claimed invention except for the lighting features.
Nevertheless, Hagen discloses a lighting unit emitting light in different colours to inform the customer by receiving data on the product recognition process by the control unit (At least the use of different colored lights as indicators in Par. [0049]; i.e. indicating cart activities, issues, items moving into and out of the basket, etc.).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing to have modified the cart system of Yang to have a lighting system, as taught by Hagen, in order to personalize and improve the cart system and shopping experience by using light to display whether the cart is damaged and/or for item verification with visible assistance.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2023/0087587 to Yang et al. in view of U.S. 2023/0143479 to Hagen et al. and in further view of U.S. PG Pub. 2019/0308652 to Green et al.
Regarding claim 3, as best understood, the previous combination of Yang and Hagen discloses the claimed invention except for the brake mechanism and sensing arm.
Nevertheless, Green teaches a brake mechanism that stops the trolley wheels (At least Par. [0050]; braking system, 206, cart wheels)
Thus, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to have modified the cart system of Yang/Hagen to have a brake mechanism, as taught by Carter, in order to provide a means for stopping the trolley for improved safety.
Regarding claim 4, as best understood, the previous combination of Yang/ Hagen/ Green discloses the claimed invention except for the sensing arm.
Nevertheless, Green teaches a sensing arm which is activated when held by the customer and deactivates the brake mechanism (At least Par. [0050]; braking system, 206, cart wheels being withdrawn when a customer places their hand(s) on the handle 106; handle sensor sensing hand of customer to ease off of brakes).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to have modified the cart system of Yang/Hagen/Carter to have a brake mechanism and sensing arm for brake deactivation, as taught by Green, in order to provide a safer means for cart storage during non-use and ease of transition to customer use to improve overall shopping center experience by reducing unwanted cart movement in stores, parking lots, parking garages, etc.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2023/0087587 to Yang et al. in view of U.S. 2023/0143479 to Hagen et al. and in further view of U.S. PG Pub. 2022/0230228 to Rajappan et al.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, as best understood, the previous combination of Yang/Hagen discloses the claimed invention except for the payment limitations.
Nevertheless, Rajappan teaches a control unit ensures that the payment of the products received is made and a payment unit for contactless payment (At least where Rajappan discloses use of digital wallets, internet banking, etc. as payment gateways; Par. [0051-0053] and the verifying of products to ensure scanning; Par. [0056-0058]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to have modified the cart system of Yang/Hagen to have contactless payment means, as taught by Rajappan, in order to provide a more convenient means of payment, to reduce the number of workers needed, or to provide a customer with a more immediate means to pay for goods for improved efficiency in shopping.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. PG Pub. 2024/0132131 to Marczak discloses a smart shopping cart having similar features to Applicant’s inventive concept, including a weight sensing system.
U.S. PG Pub. 2007/0241188 to Liao discloses a shopping trolley which uses customer ID verification, barcode reading, weighing, a system management host, etc. which are all features of the inventive concept of the instant application.
U.S. PG Pub. 2021/0287013 to Carter discloses a braking system for a cart.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brodie Follman whose telephone number is (571)270-1169. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-4:30pm EST M-F.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at (571)270-7429. 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.
/BRODIE J FOLLMAN/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
