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
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
in ¶00154, “wagon 4” should be either –wagon 2—; and
in ¶00157, the second sentence is written in the past tense.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: angles Q, g, b, a, and g’. The drawings use Greek letters while the written description uses Latin letters that resemble the drawing reference character. Reference characters k, t, and w are sufficiently similar to their Greek counterparts in the drawings.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 8 is 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. This claim recites that the optical output’s location is “preferably” positioned. This language causes the claim to be indefinite as it is unclear if this feature is being positively claimed. Additionally, the phrase “is positioned at at least one an upper edge” is unclear – “one” should likely be deleted.
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 of this title, 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 1-3, 5, 7-12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng (11,004,053) in view of Schlieffers et al. (US 2004/0111320).
Regarding claim 1, Cheng discloses a shopping cart having a terminal, the shopping cart comprises:
a wagon (6) configured to be pushed in a pushing direction and having a main receiving area;
a handle bar (1) configured to be coupled to the wagon and for pushing the wagon in the pushing direction, wherein the handle bar comprises a mounting element (12; see Col. 6, lines 18-29 and Figs. 1-3 showing the terminal mounted to the handle bar via a transverse member that supports the angled terminal 3); and
a terminal (3) configured to be coupled to the handle bar, wherein the terminal comprises:
a housing (e.g., the outer shell surrounding the touchscreen 13) with one or more portions configured to be coupled with the mounting element (e.g., the housing is mounted upon the transversely oriented support, which reads upon a portion configured to be coupled with the handles mounting element);
a touchscreen (13) configured to output information and to receive user input;
an energy storage unit (15) configured to supply the terminal with energy;
a scanner element (9) configured to scan a code related to a product (see Col. 6, lines 24-26);
a camera (8) configured to capture an image of the main receiving area when the terminal is coupled to the handle bar (see Col. 6, lines 63-67); and
a processor (e.g., the computer portion of the touchscreen computer 13) configured to identify the product by means of the code scanned by the scanner element and to verify whether the identified product is visible in the image of the main receiving area captured by the camera (see Col. 6, line 24 to Col. 7, line 7 describing the scanning and monitoring of items placed into the shopping cart).
Cheng does not disclose that the terminal is detachable from the cart and therefore does not disclose mating portions on the terminal housing or a terminal-disposed battery.
Schlieffers teaches another shopping wagon-mounted terminal (200/700) that is detachably mounted (see Fig. 16) to a handle-disposed mounting element (915/935, see Fig. 9). The terminal (e.g., terminal 700 in Fig. 7 including an energy storage unit (720 in drawing, 725 in ¶0063).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to modify the shopping cart of Cheng to have a detachable, battery powered terminal as taught by Schlieffers to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because doing so constitutes applying a known technique (e.g., making an electronic terminal portable/detachable from a base unit) to known devices (e.g., shopping carts having electronic terminals) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (e.g., a terminal that is readily detached for replacement, repair, and/or remote operation).
Regarding claims 2-3, Cheng discloses a housing disposed scanner element (9, see Figs. 1-2) configured to scan a code that is outside of the terminal housing. Inherent to the fact that the scanner is installed within the housing and is capable of scanning outside of the housing is that the scanner’s focal length is greater than the depth at which it is installed into the housing opening. Cheng, however, does not specifically provide for the depth of the scanner.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to modify the shopping cart of Cheng to have scanner sensor recessed into the housing between 1 and 3 cm, since where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). The motivation for doing so would be to ensure the relatively fragile scanning module is recessed in the housing to protect against damage.
Regarding claim 5, Cheng further discloses that the housing includes an opening for the camera (see Fig. 1 and 2 showing the camera integrated into the housing) which defines a viewing axis of the camera which forms a sharp angle with the pushing direction when the terminal is coupled to the handle bar (i.e., as shown in the Figs. and as discussed above, the camera 9 is directed downwardly at an angle to view the interior of the shopping basket in front of the camera/terminal – this angle is less than 90 degrees and reads upon being at a “sharp” angle).
Regarding claims 7-9, Cheng does not disclose an LED optical output on the terminal.
Schlieffen teaches that the terminal housing (405, see Fig. 4) includes an optical output which is visible to a user when the terminal is coupled to the handle bar and comprises a multi-colored LED light (450, see ¶0055) positioned at an upper edge of the housing along and above the display (455, see Fig 4 showing the indicator light having an elongated shape in the width direction which reads upon a reasonably broad interpretation of the term at least partially surrounds).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to modify the shopping cart of Cheng to have an operational mode/status light on the terminal as taught by Schlieffers to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because doing so constitutes applying a known technique (e.g., using lights to provide status information to a user of electronic equipment) to known devices (e.g., shopping carts having electronic terminals) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Lastly, while Schlieffers only provides for a multi-colored LED (450) and therefore does not explicitly provide for a plurality of LEDs. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to use multiple LEDs, since a mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to reduce the complexity of the LED by using a collection of single-color lights instead of a multi-colored LED. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claims 10 and 12, while Cheng discloses that the system provides a user-notifying alert, it only discloses that it is a visual cue on its screen and therefore does not provide for at least a sound output comprising an alarm.
Schlieffers teaches that a shopping cart having a bar code scanning terminal (400/700) includes an audio feedback/alarm to indicate a successful bar code scan (see ¶0058).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to modify the shopping cart of Cheng to have at least a sound output that provides a scan-associated beep as taught by Schlieffers to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because doing so constitutes applying a known technique (e.g., using sounds to provide status information to a user of electronic equipment) to known devices (e.g., shopping carts having electronic terminals) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 11, this claim further limits an alternative or additional element (i.e., the terminal has a light sensor) that is not required and not necessary to reject the antecedent claim 10. Therefore, claim 11 is also rejected as it does not further limit the feature used in rejecting claim 10. Examiner notes that automatic electronic display brightness adjustment is a well-known expedient (see e.g., US2013/0162611 in the attached Form PTO-892).
Regarding claim 14, Cheng further discloses that the terminal further comprises a data transfer interface (e.g., NFC payment device) for transferring data with an additional device, particularly a USB interface or the data transfer interface is configured to be coupled to a credit card terminal (see Col. 4, lines 59-64 describing the use of credit cards payment system) or a credit card reader.
Claims 4, 6, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng in view of Schlieffers, as applied to claims 2 and 1 above, and further in view of Iizaka et al. (11,126,810).
Regarding claims 4 and 15, Cheng does not disclose that its bar code scanner is directed in the opposite direction as the camera and therefore does not provide for an obtuse angle between the scanner angle and the forward pushing direction.
Iizaka teaches another shopping wagon-mounted terminal (100/120) that is mounted (see Fig. 1) to a handle 42. The terminal (100/120) including a rearwardly facing bar code scanner (140). The scanner (140) can be angled relative to the horizontal to point downwardly toward the ground (see Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to modify the shopping cart of Cheng to have its bar code scanner directed rearwardly and downwardly as taught by Iizaka to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because doing so constitutes applying a known technique (e.g., directing a scanner toward a desired orientation to ease usage) to known devices (e.g., shopping carts having electronic terminals with bar code scanners) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (e.g., a scanner arrangement that allows heavy objects to be scanned without lifting the object up and over the front of the shopping cart basket).
Regarding claim 6, Cheng discloses that the forwardly directed camera (8) is angled downwardly to view the interior of the shopping basket (see Figs. 1-3). The now rearwardly and downwardly angled scanner of the above Cheng/Iizaka combination, results in their respective viewing axes to be angled downwardly, but does not specifically provide for their being between 90 and 120 degrees apart.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to modify the shopping cart of the Cheng combination to have the scanner and camera be directed at downward angles resulting in their viewing angles be between 90 and 120 degrees, since where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). The motivation for doing so would be to ensure that the interior of the basket is continually monitored while allowing for easier scanning behind and below the cart.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng in view of Schlieffers, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Barkan et al. (11,151,344).
Regarding claim 13, Cheng does not disclose that its bar code scanner is activated by a motion sensor.
Barkan teaches a bar code scanner that automatically projects a red light from the scanner and begins scanning when a movement recognition element in front of the scanner detects movement (see e.g., Col. 4, lines 29-36 and Col. 9, lines 51-65).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to modify the shopping cart of the Cheng combination to have its bar code scanner use red illumination and to activate based on motion in front of the scanner as taught by Barkan to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because doing so constitutes a simple substitution of one known element (a red bar code scanner that is motion activated) for another (a non-specific bar code scanner) to obtain predictable results (e.g., a scanner that saves energy by only being powered on when motion is present and which provides a user with a visual cue of where its scanner is aimed to align the product bar codes with the scanner).
Conclusion
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire reference(s) as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
The prior art made of record in the attached Notice of References Cited and not relied
upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVE CLEMMONS whose telephone number is (313)446-4842. The examiner can normally be reached on 8-4:30 EST Monday-Friday.
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 can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/STEVE CLEMMONS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618
Prosecution Insights