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
Claims 1-7 are objected to because of the following informalities: "shoppingbag" in claim 1 line 3 should be written "shopping bag". Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gumaru (US-20190318417-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Gumaru discloses
A point of sale shopping bag to store purchasable items therein, the point of sale shopping bag comprising:
a main body (215) having a shape of a shoppingbag (Paragraph 103, lines 10-14);
a scanner (220) disposed on an outer surface (Paragraph 110, lines 1-7) of the main body to scan a barcode (Paragraph 106, lines 1-3) of at least one of the purchasable items;
a camera (220) disposed on the outer surface (Paragraph 110, lines 1-7) of the main body to take a photograph (Paragraph 106, lines 4-5) of at least another one of the purchasable items;
a scale (224) disposed within an inner portion of the main body to determine a weight of the at least another one of the purchasable items in response to the at least another one of the purchasable items being placed on the scale;
a display screen (235) disposed on the outer surface of the main body to display an image of the at least one of the purchasable items in response to the at least one of the purchasable items being scanned by the scanner (“Present information… item data,” paragraph 117, lines 1-6); and
a chip reader (255, figure 8) disposed on the outer surface of the main body to allow a user to pay for any items disposed within the main body using a credit card chip in response to the user bringing the credit card chip within a predetermined proximity of the chip reader.
Regarding claim 2, Gumaru discloses
The point of sale shopping bag of claim 1, wherein the display screen displays the at least another one of the purchasable items (“item data” Paragraph 117, lines 1-4 ) in response to the camera taking a picture of the at least another one of the purchasable items (S120, Figure 2 and Figure 5), and then displays the weight of the at least another one of the purchasable items (“item data” Paragraph 117, lines 1-4 ) in response to the at least another one of the purchasable items being placed on the scale (S120, Figure 2 and Figure 5).
Regarding claim 3, Gumaru discloses
The point of sale shopping bag of claim 1, further comprising:
a central processing unit (CPU) (228) to receive information or data from at least one of the scanner when the at least one of the purchasable items is scanned (Paragraph 113, lines 8-10), the camera when the at least another one of the purchasable items is photographed (Paragraph 113, lines 8-10), the scale when the at least another one of the purchasable items is weighed (Paragraph 114, lines 1-6), and the chip reader when the credit card chip is brought within the predetermined proximity of the chip reader (Paragraph 115, lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 4, Gumaru discloses
The point of sale shopping bag of claim 3, wherein the CPU sends payment information to a database of a store in response to the user's payment via the chip reader (Paragraph 116, lines 1-9), so that the store can confirm that the items stored within the main body have been purchased.
Regarding claim 5, Gumaru discloses
The point of sale shopping bag of claim 3, wherein the CPU maintains an accurate record of a total weight of the items disposed within the main body (Paragraph 113, lines 19-22 or Paragraph 37, lines 12-17).
Regarding claim 6, Gumaru discloses
The point of sale shopping bag of claim 3, further comprising:
a sensor (222’) disposed within the inner portion of the main body to sense each time an item is placed within the main body (Paragraph 107, lines 12-17).
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.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gumaru (US-20190318417-A1) in view of Malgarini (US-20240249342-A1).
Gumaru discloses
The point of sale shopping bag of claim 6, wherein if an item not scanned by the scanner (S120, Figure 2), not photographed by the camera (S120, Figure 2), or not weighed by the scale (S120, Figure 2),
Gumaru does not teach, however Malgarini teaches the CPU (260) sends an alert to the display screen (“Merchant dashboard VUI,” paragraph 140, lines 9-11) to indicate and display that an unscanned item has been placed inside the main body (Paragraph 140, lines 6-11) in response to the sensor (230 and 204) sensing that the unscanned item has been placed inside the main body (Paragraph 140, lines 1-9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the point of sale system taught by Gumaru with the unscanned item detection taught by Malgarini. One of ordinary skill in the art would identify that detecting when an unscanned item had entered the shopping bag would decrease the threat of theft of items in the store, as well as allow the user to know when they had erroneously placed an unscanned item in the shopping bag.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN R UEBERSCHAER whose telephone number is (571)270-5553. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30am-5:00pm.
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 McCullough can be reached at (571) 272-7805. 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.
/J.R.U./ Examiner, Art Unit 3653
/MICHAEL MCCULLOUGH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3653
