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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s communication filed on July 07, 2025 for the patent application 19/261,545. Claims 1 – 10 are pending in the application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) submitted on June 09, 2026, January 22, 2026, September 22, 2025 and July 07, 2025 were filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, these Information Disclosure Statements are being considered by the Examiner.
Claim Interpretation
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
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) because the claim limitations use 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.
The claim limitations from claims 1 – 7, 9 and 10 are: “an acquisition unit..”, “a determination unit..”, “an output unit..”, “a display control unit..”.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed functions, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed functions); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed functions so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1 - 10 are either directed to a method or system or computer readable medium, which are statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The Examiner has identified apparatus claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to computer readable claim 8. Claim 1 recites the limitations of:
( A ) an acquisition unit configured to acquire a detection result of a change in weight of a product put in a cart;
( B ) a determination unit configured to determine whether or not a user operation corresponding to the detection result has been performed; and
( C ) an output unit configured to output a notification based on a determination result by the determination unit.
These limitations without the bolded limitations above, cover performance of the limitations as certain methods of organizing human activity under their broadest reasonable interpretation.
More specifically, these limitations cover performance of the limitations as a fundamental economic practice.
In summary, if claim 1 limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic practice, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Claim 8 is also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract).
The use of the determination unit or any of the bolded limitations in claim 1 are just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. Similar arguments apply to claim 8.
Therefore, the above mentioned judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application by merely applying generic computer components (bolded elements).
In addition, supported by specification, the computer hardware are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component., see MPEP 2106.05(f), where applying a computer or using a computer is not indicative of a practical application).
Claim 1, limitation ( A ) above in Applicant’s specification para [0039], which discloses “The acquisition unit 110 acquires product registration request from the POS terminal 2 via the communication interface 14. The product registration request includes product identification information. The product registration request may include information about the number of units of the product (including information about an increase or decrease in the number of units of the product). The acquisition unit 110 acquires information regarding the number of units of the product together with the product identification information from the POS terminal 2 via the communication interface 14. Note that the acquisition unit 110 may acquire the transaction information from the POS terminal 2. In this case, the POS terminal 2 may output the product registration request to the cloud server 1 and acquire the product information from the cloud server 1. The POS terminal 2 may store the transaction information based on the product information.“.
Also, claim 1, limitation ( B ) and ( C ) above in Applicant’s specification para [0066], which discloses “The determination unit 213 performs operation determination processing. The determination unit 213 deter-mines the change in weight in the cart 5 based on the detection result of the change in weight of the products put in the cart 5. The determination unit 213 may determine an increase or decrease in weight in the cart 5 based on a preset threshold value. An example will be described where the threshold for determining that there has been an increase is "plus 25 grams" and the threshold for determining that there has been a decrease is "minus 25 grams". The determination unit 213 may determine that there has been an increase in weight when the plus value is 25 grams or more. The determination unit 213 may determine that there has been a decrease in weight when the minus value is 25 grams or more. The determination unit 213 determines whether or not an appropriate user operation corresponding to the detection result of the change in weight in the cart 5 has been performed.“.
Also, claim 1, limitation ( C ) above in Applicant’s specification para [0074], which discloses “The output unit 216 outputs various requests via the communication interface 14. The output unit 216 outputs the transaction information to the cloud server 1 via the communication interface 14. The output unit 216 outputs various notifications to the cloud server 1 via the communication interface 14. For example, the output unit 216 outputs a notification to the cloud server 1 when the number of unauthorized operations exceeds a threshold based on the determination result by the determination unit 213. The output unit 216 outputs the weighing information to the cloud server 1 via the communication interface 14. In addition, the output unit 216 may output a notification indicating an unauthorized or correction operation to the cloud server 1 every time an unauthorized or correction operation is detected.“. Similar arguments apply to claim 8.
Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they are directed to non-statutory subject matter. This claim refer to the use of a signal which is non-statutory matter. Paragraph [0028] of the specification state “The cloud server 1 is an electronic device including a processor 11, a main memory 12, an auxiliary storage device 13, and a communication interface 14. The units constituting the cloud server 1 are connected so that they can exchange input and output signals with each other. In FIG. 1, the interface is described as an "I/F".” . Thus, the broadest reasonable interpretation of machine readable medium in light of the specification includes a signal. Signals are not included in the four statutory categories: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. See, e.g., In re Nuitjen, 84 U.S.P.Q.2d 1495 (Fed. Cir. 2007)(“A transitory, propagating signal like Nuitjen’s is not a ‘process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.’ Those four categories define the explicit scope and reach of subject matter patentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101; thus, such a signal cannot be patentable subject matter.”). Therefore, this claim is non-statutory. To overcome this rejection, “non-transitory” may be inserted into the preamble before “recording medium.”
Therefore, claims 1 and 8 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application).
The claims 1 and 8 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements (bolded elements above) amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. In conclusion, merely "applying" the exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claims 1 and 8 are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more).
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 2 – 7, 9 and 10 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. Dependent claims 2 – 7, 9 and 10 are further define the abstract idea or further define the extra-solution activities that are present in independent claim 1 thus abstract idea correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity as presented above. Claims 2 – 7, 9 and 10 clearly further define the abstract idea as stated above and further define extra-solution activities such as presenting data and transmitting/receiving data.
Furthermore, dependent claims 2 – 7, 9 and 10 do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination.
Regarding claim 2, this claim merely recite additional steps that amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. Specifically, claim 2 states “wherein the determination unit is configured to make the determination in response to receiving a user operation.”. These steps amount to no more than mere data gathering/analysis, which is a form of insignificant extra- solution activity (See M PEP 2016.05(g): CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011); and GIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). Such limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or amount to significantly than the abstract idea, because the courts have found the concept of data gathering to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(d): GIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, (Fed. Cir. 2014)).
Regarding claim 3, this claim merely recite, "wherein the determination unit is configured to make the determination in response to acquiring the detection result by the acquisition unit.“. These limitation merely recites storing data in a server which amounts to no more than gathering/storing data which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.0S(g)(3)(iii): GIP Technologies, 788 F.3d at 1363). This does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it has been determined, by the courts, that the concept of storing data is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.0S(d)(II): Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
Regarding claim 4, this claim merely add further description to the process of “wherein the determination unit is configured to determine whether or not an operation corresponding to the detection result has been performed within a retroactive period set relative to a time point at which the detection result was acquired,”, which amounts to no more than gathering/storing data which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.0S(g)(3)(iii): GIP Technologies, 788 F.3d at 1363). This does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it has been determined, by the courts, that the concept of storing data is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.0S(d)(II): Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
Regarding claim 5, this claim merely recite additional steps that amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. Specifically, claim 5 states “wherein the determination unit is configured to determine whether or not an operation corresponding to the detection result has been performed within a future period set relative to a time point at which the detection result was acquired.”. These steps amount to no more than mere data gathering/analysis, which is a form of insignificant extra- solution activity (See M PEP 2016.05(g): CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011); and GIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). Such limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or amount to significantly than the abstract idea, because the courts have found the concept of data gathering to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(d): GIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, (Fed. Cir. 2014)).
Regarding claim 6, this claim merely recite, " wherein the output unit is configured to output the notification when a number of unauthorized operations exceeds a threshold based on the determination result.“. These limitation merely recites storing data in a server which amounts to no more than gathering/storing data which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.0S(g)(3)(iii): GIP Technologies, 788 F.3d at 1363). This does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it has been determined, by the courts, that the concept of storing data is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.0S(d)(II): Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
Regarding claim 7, this claim merely add further description to the process of “a display control unit configured to display a notification on a display unit based on the determination result by the determination unit.”, which amounts to no more than gathering/storing data which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.0S(g)(3)(iii): GIP Technologies, 788 F.3d at 1363). This does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it has been determined, by the courts, that the concept of storing data is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.0S(d)(II): Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
Regarding claim 9, this claim merely recite, "wherein the determination unit is configured to determine whether or not an operation corresponding to the detection result has been performed within a first retroactive period set relative to a time point at which the detection result was acquired, and the determination unit is configured to determine, in a case where the operation corresponding to the detection result has not been performed within the first retroactive period, whether or not the operation corresponding to the detection result has been performed within the first retroactive period set relative to the time point at which the detection result was acquired..“. These limitation merely recites storing data in a server which amounts to no more than gathering/storing data which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.0S(g)(3)(iii): GIP Technologies, 788 F.3d at 1363). This does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it has been determined, by the courts, that the concept of storing data is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.0S(d)(II): Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
Regarding claim 10, This claim merely add further description to the process of “wherein the determination unit is configured to determine whether or not an operation corresponding to the detection result has been performed within a first future period set relative to a time point at which the detection result was acquired, and the determination unit is configured to determine, in a case where the operation corresponding to the detection result has not been performed within the first future period, whether or not the operation corresponding to the detection result has been performed within a second future period set relative to the time point at which the detection result was acquired.”, which amounts to no more than gathering/storing data which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.0S(g)(3)(iii): GIP Technologies, 788 F.3d at 1363). This does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it has been determined, by the courts, that the concept of storing data is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.0S(d)(II): Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
As a result, such limitations do not overcome the requirements as described above. Therefore, claims 2 – 7, 9 and 10 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, claims 1 - 10 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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 –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claims 1 - 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Shuhei Nagamori (Pub. # US 2021/0042728 A1 – herein referred to as Nagamori).
Re: Claim 1, Nagamori discloses an information processing terminal comprising:
an acquisition unit configured to acquire a detection result of a change in weight of a product put in a cart (Nagamori, [0037] - FIG. 5 is a flowchart schematically illustrating a flow of the monitoring processing (ACT 2). In the monitoring processing, the control unit 110 determines a change in the weight of the basket placing unit 3 from the output of the increase and decrease detection unit 112 (ACT 11), and when there is a change (increase and decrease) (Yes in ACT 11), the control unit 110 determines whether or not the commodity information is read from the output of the commodity information acquisition unit 111 within a pre-determined time period before or after determining the change in the weight (ACT 12). When there is no reading (Yes in ACT 12), the movement state of the basket placing unit 3 is determined from the output of the movement detection unit 114 (ACT 13).);
a determination unit configured to determine whether or not a user operation corresponding to the detection result has been performed (Nagamori, [0034] - [0034] Next, the control unit 110 performs monitoring processing (described below, refer to FIG. 5) (ACT 2), and selects the next processing according to a state of the flag of the result of the processing (non-deregistration flag and non- deregistration flag) (ACT 3).); and
an output unit configured to output a notification based on a determination result by the determination unit (Nagamori, [0030], [0055] - The signal output by the movement detection unit 114 in the example embodiment is a signal by which the degree of movement can be determined and the movement distance can be calculated, but the implementation thereof is not limited thereto. In general, any signal can be used in this context as long as the signal can be utilized to determine the presence or absence of movement. The notification processing unit 115 in such a case can perform a notification based upon the output of the movement detection unit 114 once it is determined that the elapsed time from the start of the movement of the basket placing unit 3 reaches a predetermined value.).
Re: Claim 2, Nagamori discloses the information processing terminal according to claim 1,
wherein the determination unit is configured to make the determination in response to receiving a user operation (Nagamori, [0043] - Next, the control unit 110 receives the scan of the barcode by a user operation (ACT 24), acquires the commodity information (ACT 25), and stores the commodity information in the memory (for example, RAM) (ACT 26). Next, the control unit 110 waits for the user to put the commodity into the basket K (ACT 27), and acquires an actual weight of the commodity put into the basket K based upon the output of the increase and decrease detection unit 112 (ACT 28).).
Re: Claim 3, Nagamori discloses the information processing terminal according to claim 1,
wherein the determination unit is configured to make the determination in response to acquiring the detection result by the acquisition unit (Nagamori, [0068] - The program executed by the information processing apparatus of an embodiment has a module configuration including the above-described respective units (e.g., commodity information acquisition unit 111, increase and decrease detection unit 112, weight inquiry unit 113, movement detection unit 114, and notification processing unit 115). The CPU (processor) reads the program from the storage medium and executes the program, thereby loading the respective units on the main storage apparatus. Accordingly, the commodity information acquisition unit 111, the increase and decrease detection unit 112, the weight inquiry unit 113, the movement detection unit 114, and the notification processing unit 115 are realized.).
Re: Claim 4, Nagamori discloses the information processing terminal according to claim 1,
wherein the determination unit is configured to determine whether or not an operation corresponding to the detection result has been performed within a retroactive period set relative to a time point at which the detection result was acquired (Nagamori, [0043] - Next, the control unit 110 receives the scan of the barcode by a user operation (ACT 24), acquires the commodity information (ACT 25), and stores the commodity information in the memory (for example, RAM) (ACT 26). Next, the control unit 110 waits for the user to put the commodity into the basket K (ACT 27), and acquires an actual weight of the commodity put into the basket K based upon the output of the increase and decrease detection unit 112 (ACT 28).).
Re: Claim 5, Nagamori discloses the information processing terminal according to claim 1,
wherein the determination unit is configured to determine whether or not an operation corresponding to the detection result has been performed within a future period set relative to a time point at which the detection result was acquired (Nagamori, [0051] - Accordingly, for example, when the user takes out a commodity in the basket K once for confirmation, and then returns the commodity to the basket K again, in a related art, an error is issued after a certain period of time elapses from the taking-out of the commodity, but according to the present embodiment, since the cart system 1 is still in a stopped state, it is possible to avoid bothering the user with an unnecessary error issuance.).
Re: Claim 6, Nagamori discloses the information processing terminal according to claim 1,
wherein the output unit is configured to output the notification when a number of unauthorized operations exceeds a threshold based on the determination result (Nagamori, [0050] - As described above, according to the embodiment, in spite of a fact that the gross weight of the commodities in the commodity placement portion (basket placing unit 3) increases or decreases and thus it is presumed that the commodity is put into or taken out from the basket K, when the commodity code is not read by the scanner 5 and there is a possibility that the user may forget performing the registration (or deregistration) operation, it is possible to wait until it is considered almost certain that a commodity was not read, and to perform the alert notification appropriately by checking for the presence or absence of movement of the cart system 1 and a degree or amount thereof. Therefore, according to the embodiment, it is possible to notify a user of commodity non-registration at a proper timing when the commodity registration should be performed.).
Re: Claim 7, Nagamori discloses the information processing terminal according to claim 1,
further comprising a display control unit configured to display a notification on a display unit based on the determination result by the determination unit (Nagamori, [0041] - FIG. 8A is a diagram illustrating an example of an alert displayed in the non-registration alert processing. For example, the alert is displayed as a pop-up window super-imposed on the registration screen. A text of the alert is, for example, "COMMODITY NOT REGISTERED AS COM-MODITY IS PUT INTO BASKET. PLEASE TAKE OUT CORRECT COMMODITY AND SCAN BARCODE." The pop-up window of the alert includes an "OK" object (e.g., button).).
Re: Claim 8, Nagamori discloses a recording medium on which an information processing program is recorded, the information processing program causing a computer to execute:
an acquisition function that acquires a detection result of a change in weight of a product put in a cart (Nagamori, [0030] - The weight inquiry unit 113 compares an increase and decrease value of the weight held by the basket placing unit based upon the output of the increase and decrease detection unit 112 to a reference value for the weight included in the commodity information acquired by the commodity information acquisition unit 111. When the increase and decrease value is very different from the reference value (for example, the increase and decrease value deviates from within a predetermined range set as the reference value), the weight inquiry unit 113 performs a notification that causes a user to be warned about possible commodity registration errors.);
a determination function that determines whether or not a user operation corresponding to the detection result has been performed (Nagamori, [0032] - In spite of a fact that the output of the increase and decrease detection unit 112 indicates the increase and decrease in the number of commodities, when the commodity information acquisition unit 111 does not acquire the commodity information and the output of the movement detection unit 114 indicates that the basket placing unit 3 moves, the notification processing unit 115 notifies information (alert) that causes the user to be warned about the commodity registration and possible errors or discrepancies thereof. As a specific example of the alert, there are a warning to perform the commodity registration when the output of the increase and decrease detection unit 112 indicates an increase in the number of commodities and similarly a warning to perform the deregistration (return) of a commodity when the output of the increase and decrease detection unit 112 indicates a decrease in the number of commodities. When it is determined that the movement distance of the basket placing unit 3 reaches a predetermined value based upon the output of the movement detection unit 114, the notification processing unit 115 performs the above described alert notification.); and
an output function that outputs a notification based on a determination result by the determination function (Nagamori, [0030], [0055] - The signal output by the movement detection unit 114 in the example embodiment is a signal by which the degree of movement can be determined and the movement distance can be calculated, but the implementation thereof is not limited thereto. In general, any signal can be used in this context as long as the signal can be utilized to determine the presence or absence of movement. The notification processing unit 115 in such a case can perform a notification based upon the output of the movement detection unit 114 once it is determined that the elapsed time from the start of the movement of the basket placing unit 3 reaches a predetermined value.).
Re: Claim 9, Nagamori discloses the information processing terminal according to claim 4,
wherein the determination unit is configured to determine whether or not an operation corresponding to the detection result has been performed within a first retroactive period set relative to a time point at which the detection result was acquired (Nagamori, [0043] - Next, the control unit 110 receives the scan of the barcode by a user operation (ACT 24), acquires the commodity information (ACT 25), and stores the commodity information in the memory (for example, RAM) (ACT 26). Next, the control unit 110 waits for the user to put the commodity into the basket K (ACT 27), and acquires an actual weight of the commodity put into the basket K based upon the output of the increase and decrease detection unit 112 (ACT 28).), and
the determination unit is configured to determine, in a case where the operation corresponding to the detection result has not been performed within the first retroactive period, whether or not the operation corresponding to the detection result has been performed within the first retroactive period set relative to the time point at which the detection result was acquired (Nagamori, [0052], [0057] - According to the embodiment, for example, in a case where the commodity is large, when the user puts the commodity into the basket K prior to the scanning thereof and then reads the commodity by picking up the scanner 5, in a related art, an error would be issued after a certain period of time elapses from the putting-in of the commodity, but according to the present embodiment, since the cart system 1 is still considered to be in a stopped state, it is possible to avoid bothering the user with an unnecessary error issuance.).
Re: Claim 10, Nagamori discloses the information processing terminal according to claim 5,
wherein the determination unit is configured to determine whether or not an operation corresponding to the detection result has been performed within a first future period set relative to a time point at which the detection result was acquired (Nagamori, [0051] - Accordingly, for example, when the user takes out a commodity in the basket K once for confirmation, and then returns the commodity to the basket K again, in a related art, an error is issued after a certain period of time elapses from the taking-out of the commodity, but according to the present embodiment, since the cart system 1 is still in a stopped state, it is possible to avoid bothering the user with an unnecessary error issuance.), and
the determination unit is configured to determine, in a case where the operation corresponding to the detection result has not been performed within the first future period, whether or not the operation corresponding to the detection result has been performed within a second future period set relative to the time point at which the detection result was acquired (Nagamori, [0037] - FIG. 5 is a flowchart schematically illustrating a flow of the monitoring processing (ACT 2). In the monitoring processing, the control unit 110 determines a change in the weight of the basket placing unit 3 from the output of the increase and decrease detection unit 112 (ACT 11), and when there is a change (increase and decrease) (Yes in ACT 11), the control unit 110 determines whether or not the commodity information is read from the output of the commodity information acquisition unit 111 within a pre-determined time period before or after determining the change in the weight (ACT 12). When there is no reading (Yes in ACT 12), the movement state of the basket placing unit 3 is determined from the output of the movement detection unit 114 (ACT 13).).
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chizu Shimizu et al. – Pat. # US 5, 898,158: “PURCHASED COMMODITY ACCOMMODATING AND TRANSPORTING APPARATUS HAVING SELF SCANNING FUNCTION AND POS SYSTEM”.
Kentaro Hamada – Pub. # US 2022/0309485 A1: “INFORMATION PROCESSING SYSTEM, INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD, AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER READABLE MEDIUM”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN H. HOLLY whose telephone number is (571)270-3461. The examiner can normally be reached on MON. - FRI 10 AM - 8 PM.
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, MATTHEW S. GART can be reached on 571-272-3955. 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.
/John H. Holly/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3696
Prosecution Insights