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 Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without “significantly more.” Claims 1-15 are directed to certain methods of organizing human activity which is considered an abstract idea. Further, the claim(s) as a whole, when examined on a limitation-by-limitation basis and in ordered combination do not include an inventive concept.
Step 1 – Statutory Categories
In regard to claims 1-15 as indicated in the preamble of the claims, the examiner finds the claims are directed to a process, machine, or article of manufacture.
Step 2A – Prong One - Abstract Idea Analysis
Representative independent claim 11 recites the following abstract concepts, in italics below, which are found to include an “abstract idea”:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by a computing system cause the computing system to perform operations comprising: performing a vehicle function to measure a weight of an item placed into a self-checkout vehicle based on weight measurements captured by a weight sensor coupled to the self-checkout vehicle; receiving a movement measurement from a movement sensor coupled to the self- checkout vehicle; comparing the movement measurement to a threshold; and responsive to determining that the movement measurement exceeds the threshold, disabling the vehicle function of the self-checkout vehicle.
The claim features in italics above as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation are certain methods of organizing human activity (fundamental economic practices and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people) performed by generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a computer system, and sensors”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being a method of organized human activity. For example, but for the “a computer system, and sensors”, the above italicized limitations in the context of this claim encompasses certain methods of organizing human activity. If the claim limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people and fundamental economic practices, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two - Abstract Idea Analysis
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites 2 additional elements – “a computer system, and sensors”. They are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f)), data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), and linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B - Significantly More Analysis
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “a computer system, and sensors” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, insignificant extra-solution activity, and linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, insignificant extra-solution activity, and linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, the background and specification does not provide any indication that the “a computer system, and sensors” is anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer components. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 4-6, 8-12, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent No. 9,589,433 B1 to Thramann (“Thramann”), in view of United States Patent No. 8,046,160 B2 to Carter et al. (“Carter”), and further in view of United States Patent No. 4,379,495 to Cocks et al. (“Cocks”).
In regards to claims 1 and 11, Thramann discloses the following limitations:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by a computing system cause the computing system to perform operations comprising (Thramann discloses code stored in a computer-readable medium such as system memory, a fixed disk, an optical disk, or a floppy disk that implements the disclosed operations; see at least Thramann col. 10, ll. 50-54)
A method comprising :performing a vehicle function to measure a weight of an item placed into a self-checkout vehicle based on weight measurements captured by a weight sensor coupled to the self-checkout vehicle; (Thramann discloses a self-checkout system in which the post-purchase product location may be a shopping cart into which a customer places scanned items, and “the scale may be connected to the base of a shopping cart” to register the actual total weight of the items placed therein; see at least Thramann col. 4, ll. 44-53);
Thramann does not appear to specifically disclose the following limitations:
receiving a movement measurement from a movement sensor coupled to the self- checkout vehicle; comparing the movement measurement to a threshold; and responsive to determining that the movement measurement exceeds the threshold, disabling the vehicle function of the self-checkout vehicle.
The Examiner provides Carter to teach the following limitations:
receiving a movement measurement from a movement sensor coupled to the self-checkout vehicle; (Carter teaches a shopping cart carrying a motion sensor that comprises a speed sensor which measures the speed of the cart, and the motion sensor may additionally comprise an accelerometer that detects acceleration of the cart; the motion sensor is disposed in or on the cart, e.g., in a wheel, wheel assembly, handlebars, or frame; see at least Carter col. 13, ll. 4-8 and col. 14, ll. 40-53)
comparing the movement measurement to a threshold; and responsive to determining that the movement measurement exceeds the threshold, disabling (Carter teaches that a processor coupled to the cart compares the cart’s sensed condition against a predetermined threshold and, when the threshold condition is met, triggers an action that disables a function of the cart — e.g., engaging a wheel brake to inhibit cart motion; see at least Carter col. 12, ll. 17-24 and col. 16, ll. 22-27)
The Examiner provides Cocks to teach the following limitations:
disabling the vehicle function of the self-checkout vehicle (Cocks teaches a scale that identifies an “in-motion” versus “out-of-motion” condition by comparing a movement measurement against a predetermined threshold constant, and that while the scale is in motion “it is not necessary to perform any further computation” of the weight because such readings “are not representative of the weight on the scale”; see at least Cocks col. 9, ll. 35-42).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the self-checkout cart of Thramann the cart-mounted movement sensor and threshold-comparison logic of Carter, and to disable the weighing function upon the movement measurement exceeding the threshold as taught by Cocks, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this combination in order to avoid recording an inaccurate weight while the cart is being moved, thereby improving the reliability of the cart’s weight-based measurement.
In regards to claims 2, 8, and 12, The combination discloses the following limitations:
wherein the movement sensor is a speed sensor that is configured to measure a speed of the self-checkout vehicle. (Carter teaches that the motion sensor comprises a speed sensor that measures the speed of the cart over a time interval; see at least Carter col. 13, ll. 4-8).
In regards to claims 4, 9, and 14, The combination discloses the following limitations:
further comprising: responsive to determining that the movement measurement is below the threshold, enabling the vehicle function. (see at least Cocks col. 10, ll. 33-38)
In regards to claims 5, 10, and 15, The combination discloses the following limitations:
further comprising: displaying the weight of the item on the self-checkout vehicle. (Thramann discloses displaying lookup information to the user for confirmation of the item, including weight, price, image etc. see at least Thramann col. 4, ll. 33-43), and (Carter teaches a display mounted on the cart for displaying information about items to the user. see at least Carter col. 16, ll 6-15)
In regards to claim 6, Thramann discloses the following limitations:
A method comprising: performing a vehicle function to measure a weight of an item placed into a self-checkout vehicle based on weight measurements captured by a weight sensor coupled to the self-checkout vehicle; (Thramann discloses a self-checkout system in which the post-purchase product location may be a shopping cart into which a customer places scanned items, and “the scale may be connected to the base of a shopping cart” to register the actual total weight of the items placed therein; see at least Thramann col. 4, ll. 44-53);
Thramann does not appear to specifically disclose the following limitations:
receiving an incline measurement from a movement sensor coupled to the self-checkout vehicle; comparing the incline measurement to a threshold; and responsive to determining that the incline measurement exceeds the threshold, disabling the vehicle function of the self-checkout vehicle.
The Examiner provides Carter to teach the following limitations:
receiving an incline measurement from a movement sensor coupled to the self-checkout vehicle; comparing the incline measurement to a threshold; (Carter teaches an orientation sensor comprising an inclinometer and/or accelerometer coupled to the cart; see at least Carter col. 12, ll. 6-16) and further (Carter teaches that a processor coupled to the cart compares the cart’s sensed condition against a predetermined threshold and, when the threshold condition is met, triggers an action that disables a function of the cart — e.g., engaging a wheel brake to inhibit cart motion; see at least Carter col. 12, ll. 17-24 and col. 16, ll. 22-27)
and responsive to determining that the incline measurement exceeds the threshold, disabling the vehicle function of the self-checkout vehicle. (Cocks teaches a scale that identifies an “in-motion” versus “out-of-motion” condition by comparing a movement measurement against a predetermined threshold constant, and that while the scale is in motion “it is not necessary to perform any further computation” of the weight because such readings “are not representative of the weight on the scale”; see at least Cocks col. 9, ll. 35-42).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the self-checkout cart of Thramann the cart-mounted movement sensor and threshold-comparison logic of Carter, and to disable the weighing function upon the movement measurement exceeding the threshold as taught by Cocks, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this combination in order to avoid recording an inaccurate weight while the cart is being moved, thereby improving the reliability of the cart’s weight-based measurement.
Claims 3, 7, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Thramann, Carter, and Cocks as above, and further in view of United States Patent No. 7,906,737 B2 to Freydank et al. (“Freydank”).
In regards to claims 3, 7, and 13, The combination discloses the following limitations:
further comprising: determining an incline measurement of the self-checkout vehicle based on an output of the movement sensor; and (Carter teaches that the cart carries one or more orientation sensors configured to determine whether, and by how much, the cart is inclined with respect to the local gravitational field, and that these orientation sensors “may comprise inclinometers and/or accelerometers”; see at least Carter col. 12, ll. 6-16)
The combination does not appear to specifically disclose the following limitations:
calculating a normalized weight based on the movement measurement and the incline measurement.
The Examiner provides Freydank to teach this limitation:
calculating a normalized weight based on the incline measurement (Freydank discloses an electronic scale comprising an inclinometer that derives a signal for the tilt of the scale, and uses that tilt signal by digital means to correct the error in the measured weight caused by the cosine effect when the scale is tilte. see at least Freydank col. 1, ll. 12-24).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the combination of Thramann, Carter, and Cocks the inclinometer-based tilt correction of Freydank, so as to calculate a normalized weight from the incline measurement provided by the Carter orientation sensor, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this combination in order to obtain an accurate, tilt-compensated weight from the cart when the cart rests or travels on an inclined surface.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH M MUTSCHLER whose telephone number is (313)446-6603. The examiner can normally be reached 0600-1430.
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, Florian Zeender can be reached at (571)272-6790. 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.
/JOSEPH M MUTSCHLER/Examiner, Art Unit 3627
/A. Hunter Wilder/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights