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 .
The previous office action filed on 08/13/2026 is withdrawn.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 06/10/2025 are accepted by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the scale" in page 1, line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/14/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-5 and 7-8 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. the limitations includes “a global position system, a first visual indicator when all products in the rolling cart or basket are paid; a second visual indicator when at least one product is unpaid or a weight does not match scanned information; or a third visual indicator when the shopping system is in use” and “a device determining a geographic location communicatively connected to the processor; a first visual indicator when all products in the rolling cart or basket are paid; and a second visual indicator when a proper product has not been placed in the rolling cart or basket, when an unscanned item has been placed in the rolling cart or basket, or weight discrepancy exists in the rolling cart or basket” are not described or supported by the specification filed on 06/10/2025. Examiner notes that the limitation can be supported by the specification filed on 05/25/2015 for U.S. Patent No. 9,230,249.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-5 and 7-8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4 of prior U.S. Patent No. 12,346,957 in view of claim 1 of prior U.S. Patent No. 9,230,249. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim under examination anticipated by patent claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5 and 7-8 are allowable over prior art and would be allowed if nonstatutory double patenting rejection and the 112 rejection can be overcome.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
Prior art (Joseph) discloses the invention, however, Joseph does not disclose the specific structure (i.e., A shopping system comprising: a removable sleeve, a plurality of electronic components attached to the removable sleeve, the plurality of electronic components comprising: a scanner, a processor, a display screen, a light array, a power source, and a global positioning system).
A prior art (DE 4239926) to Dohle teaches a removable sleeve attached to …. a plurality of electronic components, the attached electronic components comprising: a user interface, a processor; a scanner (FIGS. 25 and 26 show a computing device with the scanner 41, with Einleseoptik 43 attached on the end side of the scanner 42 is arranged. The clamping arch 44 can be arranged detachably or permanently on the holding device 2 or also directly on the computing device 1 , 34 , 41, Fig. 25-27, page 5). However, Dohle does not disclose a removable sleeve comprising a light array connected to the container, the scale is put into contact with the container, and a global positioning system.
The limitations lacking in the prior art, in combination with the other limitations clearly claimed for patent, are novel and unobvious.
A search for non-patent literature (NPL) was conducted, however, no relevant NPL prior art was found.
Any comments considered necessary by Applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee, and to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled Comments on Statement of Reasons for allowance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARIEL J YU whose telephone number is (571)270-3312. The examiner can normally be reached 11AM - 7PM (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, Obeid Fahd A can be reached on 571-270-3324. 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.
/ARIEL J YU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights