Examiner thanks applicant for amendment to advance prosecution.
STATUS OF CLAIMS
This is in response to the 1/5/26 RCE filed after PTAB affirmed Examiner. Claims 1-20 are examined.
Amended 1 7 9-13
Canceled none
New 14-20
Claims 1-20 examined. 1-15 rejected. 16-20 not rejected and potentially allowable.
Related applications:
Divisional of 14/934,134, filed Nov. 5, 2015, now pending, which claims the benefit of
62/076,437, titled "EVALUATING AND RECYCLING ELECTRONIC DEVICES," filed Nov. 6, 2014
Claim 1
1. A method for identifying target devices for processing at a consumer-operated kiosk, the method comprising:
via a software application executed by a processor of an electronic device
determining, via a processor of the electronic device, one or more available communication channels of the electronic device
receiving a user request to scan for one or more target devices connected to at least one of the available communication channels
for one or more of the available communication channels to which a target device is connected
electronically obtaining data transmitted by the target device over the communication channel
[Wingdings font/0xA2] for each connected target device from which data is obtained
[Wingdings font/0x77] identifying a model and/or hardware configuration of the target device based on the data and
[Wingdings font/0x77] adding the target device to a list of target devices
displaying, via a display screen of the electronic device, the list of target devices to the user of the electronic device
providing the data obtained from at least one of the target devices from the list of target devices to a remote server
analyzing the data received from the software application to generate a processing evaluation for the target device associated with said data
associating the processing evaluation with a unique identifier for later retrieval by the consumer-operated kiosk
PNG
media_image1.png
848
632
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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
The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim(s) 1-20 is/are directed to one or more abstract idea(s). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea(s).
The claims are directed to pricing a good for sale/shopping (demander shops for buyer of demander’s device, supplier shops for device to buy), & more specifically user requests device scan, model is ascertained, list of devices is displayed with price to user.
Step 1
The claims and their dependents are directed to one of the statutory classes (1 17 process). The claims herein are directed to subject matter which would be classified under one of the listed statutory classifications (i.e., 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (hereinafter “PEG”) “PEG” Step 1=Yes).
Step 2a
Prong 1
The claim(s) is/are directed to CERTAIN METHODS OF ORGANIZING HUMAN BEHAVIOR. The claims are directed to data gathering and arranging content.
[Wingdings font/0x9F] fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk)
[Wingdings font/0x9F] commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)
[Wingdings font/0x9F] managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions
Alice
clearinghouse
implemented by computer
Here
Price an item for sale, shopping
implemented by computer
Bilski
hedge
implemented by computer
The claim 1 is/are directed to data gathering for pricing a good for sale, shopping.
Collecting info, analyzing it, displaying certain results. Elec. Power Group (CAFC 2016)(EPG).
Creating an index, and using that index to search for and retrieve data (Int. Ventures v. Erie Indemnity I: ‘434 patent).
Collecting, analyzing information to detect a state (e.g. misuse), notify user when state detected (FairWarning).
Claim 1
2019 Revised Guidance 84 Fed Reg 50
1. A method for identifying target devices for processing at a consumer-operated kiosk, the method comprising:
Statutory process (method)
Trade-in values are pertinent to fundamental economic practice(e.g. A sale transaction with trade-in credit)
via a software application executed by a processor of an electronic device
Generic element generally applied for Insignificant extra solution activity, e.g. Data gathering via generic element generally applied mpep 2106.05 and USPTO 2019 revised 101 guidance 55, note 31
determining, via a processor of the electronic device, one or more available communication channels of the electronic device
Insignificant extra solution activity, e.g. Data gathering via generic element generally applied mpep 2106.05 and USPTO 2019 revised 101 guidance 55, note 31
receiving a user request to scan for one or more target devices connected to at least one of the available communication channels
Insignificant extra solution activity, e.g. Data gathering via generic element generally applied mpep 2106.05 and USPTO 2019 revised 101 guidance 55, note 31
for one or more of the available communication channels to which a target device is connected
Insignificant extra solution activity, e.g. Data gathering via generic element generally applied MPEP 2106.05 and USPTO 2019 revised 101 guidance 55, note 31
electronically obtaining data transmitted by the target device over the communication channel
[Wingdings font/0xA2] for each connected target device from which data is obtained
[Wingdings font/0x77] identifying a model and/or hardware configuration of the target device based on the data and
[Wingdings font/0x77] adding the target device to a list of target devices
Abstract idea, i.e. mental process. E.g. concept performed in the mind including observation, evaluation, judgement Rev. Guid. 52. Additional elements [ electronically, electronic, channel] are generic
displaying, via a display screen of the electronic device, the list of target devices to the user of the electronic device
Insignificant extra solution activity, e.g. Data gathering via generic element generally applied mpep 2106.05 and USPTO 2019 revised 101 guidance 55, note 31
providing the data obtained from at least one of the target devices from the list of target devices to a remote server
Trade-in values are pertinent to fundamental economic practice (e.g. A sale transaction with trade-in credit). Display price is insignificant extra-solution activity MPEP 2106.05d
analyzing the data received from the software application to generate a processing evaluation for the target device associated with said data
Trade-in values are pertinent to fundamental economic practice(e.g. A sale transaction with trade-in credit). Display price is insignificant extra-solution activity MPEP 2106.05d
associating the processing evaluation with a unique identifier for later retrieval by the consumer-operated kiosk
abstract idea of indexing
Applicant’s Specification ¶ 23, 30 says the invention is pricing a good for sale, shopping.
Thus, the claims “recite” an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong 1=Yes).
Additional element(s) or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se amount(s) to: electronic device, target device, communication channel. These are generic elements, MPEP 2106.05.
Other steps do not present significantly more or integrate the idea into a practical application.
Rather, the limitations merely add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Prong 1 answered “YES”, the next question in Prong 2 is whether there is an integrated practical application. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional element – computing device, processor, code set, kiosk to perform the claim steps. The elements are recited at a high-level of generality (e.g. 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, general linking of idea to generic element. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for lack of any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
FYI
A. Concepts Relating To Data Comparisons That Can Be Performed Mentally Or Are Analogous To Human Mental Work
Anonymous loan SHOPPING (Mortgage Grader)
Collecting and comparing known information (Classen)
Comparing data to determine a risk level (Perkin-Elmer)
Comparing info regarding a sample or test subject to a control or target data (Ambry/Myriad CAFC)
Comparing new and stored information and using rules to identify options (Smartgene)
Diagnosing an abnormal condition by performing clinical tests and thinking about the results (Grams)
Obtaining and comparing intangible data (CyberSource)
B. Concepts Relating To Organizing Or Analyzing Information In A Way That Can Be Performed Mentally Or Is Analogous To Human Mental Work
•Collecting and analyzing information to detect misuse and notifying a user when misuse is detected (FairWarning)
•Collecting, displaying, and manipulating data (Int. Ventures v. Cap One Financial)
•Collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis (Electric Power Group; West View)
•Collection, storage, and recognition of data (Smart Systems Innovations)
•Creating an index, and using that index to search for and retrieve data (Int. Ventures v. Erie Indemnity I: ‘434 patent)
•Data recognition and storage (Content Extraction)
•Determining a price, using organizational and product group hierarchies (Versata)
•Encoding and decoding image data (RecogniCorp)
•Identification of unwanted files in a particular field (Int. Ventures v. Erie Indemnity II)
•Mental process for logic circuit design (Synopsys)
•Organizing and manipulating information through mathematical correlations (Digitech)
•Relaying mailing address data (Return Mail)
•Retaining information in navigation of online forms (Internet Patents)
•Storing, gathering, and analyzing data (TDE Petroleum)
•Using categories to organize, store and transmit information (Cyberfone)
Inspecting a device and coming up with a price, here, is done electronically.
Dependent claims
Claim 2-3 is a description of a generic device, doesn’t integrate the idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Claim 4-7 is mere data gathering MPEP 2106, doesn’t integrate the idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Claim 8 is mere description of data gathered MPE 2106, doesn’t integrate the idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Claim 9 is extra solution activity, display MPEP 2106, doesn’t integrate the idea into a practical application or provide significantly more but rather look up from a list; Creating an index, and using that index to search for and retrieve data (Int. Ventures v. Erie Indemnity I: ‘434 patent).
Claim 10 is generic element generally applied for data gathering to manage human activity, doesn’t integrate the idea into a practical application or provide significantly more but rather look up from a list; Creating an index, and using that index to search for and retrieve data (Int. Ventures v. Erie Indemnity I: ‘434 patent).
Claim 11-12 is the idea itself implemented with generic elements generally applied, doesn’t integrate the idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Claim 13 is part of the idea itself, adding a proof or confirmation to be used in organizing human activity, doesn’t integrate the idea into a practical application or provide significantly more; cause … evaluation -- Collecting info, analyzing it, displaying certain results. Elec. Power Group (CAFC 2016)(EPG).
Claim 14, ineligible for same reasons as claim 1; data gathering (display test pattern) detect user interaction, determining a condition Collecting, analyzing information to detect a state (e.g. misuse), notify user when state detected (FairWarning).
Claim 15 ineligible like 14 with 15 merely adding a description of type of data gathered (physical condition)
Claims 16-20, 101 eligible.
Only general skill is required ¶ 24, 36, 40 45 49, any target device suffices Spec ¶ 40, and the Spec simply requires generic data gathering Spec e.g. ¶ 59-60.
Data gathering examples
MOBILE INTEGRATED DEVICE AND ELECTRONIC DATA PLATFORM FOR CHEMICAL ANALYSIS
US 20190072529 Abstract
Abstract
Systems, methods and computer program products for cannabis analysis, such as a system that has a cannabis analysis data server and a plurality of mobile cannabis analysis devices that are communicatively coupled to a network. The mobile devices perform physical analyses of a physical sample and communicate resulting data to the cannabis analysis data server with a unique identifier. The mobile cannabis analysis devices may also monitor device and external environmental conditions that affect the performance and communicate these to the cannabis analysis data server. The cannabis analysis data server performs analyses on the received data from the mobile devices. Based on the sample analyses, the cannabis analysis data server generates sample analysis reports and communicates them to a user. The cannabis analysis data server may also generate data to control the operation of the mobile cannabis analysis devices based on the operation and environmental data received from the devices.
RAPIDLY CONFIGURABLE DRUG DETECTION SYSTEM WITH ENHANCED CONFIDENTIALITY
US 20190057759 ¶ 24 80 94
[0024] In a preferred embodiment, the device software will be further configured to use the device's network interface (such as a Wi-Fi wireless interface, wireless router, and internet connectivity) to transmit various data such as operator entered analysis parameters for at least a subset of the plurality of analytes (e.g. what analytes the operator selected), the reporting information, the test details, at least some sample donor information, the test ID code (possibly obtained from images of test optical ID codes), and images of the spatially separated optically detectable signals (e.g. the various immunoassay test kit “lines”) to a remote server. In this preferred embodiment, to enhance privacy and security, the obfuscation code is stored on this remote server, and is not transmitted to either the handheld computerized device or the operator.
[0080] The server software will typically be configured to use the server's network interface to receive, from the computerized device (100), the previously discussed operator entered analysis parameters for at least a subset of the plurality of analytes (see FIG. 6), the test reporting information and test details (see FIG. 8), at least some of the sample donor information (see FIG. 7 and/or FIG. 8), the test ID code (e.g. FIG. 4 154), and images (see FIG. 3C 106, 150) of the spatially separated optically detectable signals (160).
[0094] Thus, in some specific embodiments where the system uses a remote server (200) and database, this database (202) can comprise records associating specific test optical ID codes (152, 154) with a list of a plurality of test analytes analyzed by a specific test kit (150) with that specific test kit's optical ID code, and the properties of that specific test kit, and that specific test kit's obfuscation code (answer key). The server software is often configured to use that server's network interface to receive (over the internet 170), from the handheld computerized device (100), the operator entered analysis parameters for at least a subset of the plurality of analytes (e.g. tests and sensitivity levels chosen), the test reporting information, any additional test details, at least some sample donor information, images (or results from) of the test optical ID code(s) (152, 154), and images of the spatially separated optically detectable signals (160).
DATA SYNCHRONIZATION BETWEEN TWO OR MORE ANALYTE DETECTING DEVICES IN A DATABASE
US 20200357492 Abstract
Abstract
An analyte measurement system includes one or more handheld analyte meters and/or measurement devices and a means for collecting data, preserving data integrity, and uniquely identifying patient data received from multiple sources. For example, provided herein is a means to uniquely identify patients and their data when the data is collected from one or more measurement devices. By providing a way to allow the patients to use multiple sources to collect data, the system described herein provides patients with more flexibility, which should encourage better compliance to protocols. Further, by having a way to uniquely identify patients' data without requiring a patient to only use one analyte meter, for example, data can be centralized and analysis can be done with more assurance that all of the patient's data is being considered in the analyses.
KETOGENIC DIETARY EVALUATION SYSTEM AND OPERATION METHOD
US 20230134678 ¶ 23
[0023] In practice, for example, the ketogenic diet evaluation system 100 can be a server, a computer host or other computer equipment. The server can be remotely managed in a manner that substantially provides accessibility, consistency, and efficiency. Remote management removes the need for input/output interfaces (e.g., a display screen, a mouse, a keyboard, and so on) in the servers. An administrator can manage a large data centers containing numerous rack servers using a variety of remote management tools, such as simple terminal connections, remote desktop applications, and software tools used to configure, monitor, and troubleshoot server hardware and software.
WIRELESS NETWORK PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT AND MANAGEMENT USING REMOTE DEVICES
US 20170339630 Abstract
Abstract
A system for measuring and reporting wireless network service quality using remote devices is disclosed. The system comprises a central analysis and control server, a wireless device, and a wireless network testing software application, which is transmitted to the wireless device. The wireless device performs testing of wireless networks and sends test data to the central server. The received data us transformed and an indicia of wireless network service quality is obtained.
MANAGING MOBILE DEVICE LIFE CYCLE
US 20140244315
Abstract
A method of managing mobile device lifecycle includes the step of providing a first module in an application residing on a mobile device, whereby upon selection by a user of the mobile device of an insurance purchase transaction, the application initiates a transaction for the purchase of insurance for the mobile device. The method further includes the step of providing a second module in the application residing on the mobile device, whereby upon selection by a user of the mobile device of a sale transaction, the application initiates a transaction for the sale of the mobile device.
[0053] Referring to FIGS. 5A, 5B, 6, 7, 8A, 8B, 9, and 13-15 a flow chart depicting exemplary functionality of a buy-back or trade-in process conducted through the buy-back module 202 (FIG. 5A and 5B) and a number of screens (FIGS. 6-9 and 13-15) encountered by a user on the mobile device user interface and showing the progression of the buy-back process are shown. In illustrative embodiments, the buy-back module 202 allows a user to trade-in or sell their mobile device in exchange for payment. Upon selection of the buy-back module 202 in the application 26, a screen such as that shown in FIG. 6 is seen by the user on their mobile device user interface. After the user selects the "GO" button 350 in FIG. 6, the application 26 (or a buy-back server 150) accesses the mobile device 24 to determine information regarding the mobile device 24 at block 300. The application 26 may pull information such as, for example, user name, mobile device type/manufacturer and/or model, international mobile equipment identity number, telephone number, if applicable, carrier, email, address, date of purchase, age of mobile device, and/or any other suitable information. The application 26 then forwards the information to a third party and/or the buy-back server 150 at block 302 that uses the information to assess a real-time value of the user's used mobile device 24.
MOBILE DEVICE TRADE-IN VALUE QUOTATIONS
US 20130246212
[0029] The pricing module 22 also receives the trade-in quote and comparison request, which includes identification of the new mobile device 15 for comparing against the mobile device 14. The pricing module 22 sends the identification of the new mobile device 15 to a new mobile device database 66, as at 70. The new mobile device database 66 includes lookup tables for identifying a retail price of the new mobile device 15 for comparing against the device 14, based on the received identification of the new mobile device 15. The retail price of the new mobile device 15 obtained from the new mobile device database 66 is sent to the pricing module 22. In one embodiment, the new mobile device database 66 is incorporated into the pricing database 50.
DEVICE APPRAISAL Burmster
US 20160019607
Abstract
Systems and methods for device appraisal are described. Some implementations include receiving a request from a mobile station to access a device appraisal service, retrieving one or more parameters associated with the mobile station, where the parameters include at least a mobile directory number (MDN) of the mobile station, automatically determining a model of the mobile station based on the MDN, displaying, at the mobile station, a web interface of the device appraisal service, providing for display in the web interface an identification of the model of the mobile station and user interface elements to receive condition information of the mobile station, determining a trade-in value of the mobile station based on the identified model and the condition information, and providing the trade-in value of the mobile station to the web interface for display at the mobile station.
Remotely Determining Condition of Used Electronic Device Nguyen
US 20150309912
[0023] The method of the present invention comprises connecting the device under test to a test machine, using the test machine to identify the manufacturer, model, operating system, and identification number under test; determining whether the device under test is likely to have been stolen and rejecting it if it is; performing a functional test on the device using the test machine; performing a cosmetic test on the device; determining a resale value for the device; and offering remuneration to the owner of the device under test.
PNG
media_image2.png
870
689
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Step 2b
The additional elements electronic device, target device, communication channel are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not provide improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, and do not provide meaningful limitations beyond general linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Additionally, the claims are directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements that do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because they require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry.
Moreover, these generic limitations do not constitute significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, not meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See Alice Corp p.16 of slip op. noting that none of the hardware recited "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking ‘the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment', that is implementation via computers" (citing Bilski 561 US at 610).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements merely detail generic computer processors and software that implement the abstract idea. The generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be routine in any computer implementation. The additional element merely instruct that the execution of the abreact idea occurs on other generic technology, but does not offer any disclosure of any additional technology beyond the abstract idea itself. Moreover, the claim steps as an ordered combination do not present significantly more. The claims are not directed to an improvement in computer functionality like in Enfish v Microsoft, but rather to an abstract idea. The claims "do nothing more than spell out what it means to 'apply it on a computer'”, Intellectual Ventures I 792 F.3d p1371 (citing Alice). Nowhere in the claims or specification is there any indication that the computer, processor, medium do something unconventional such that Applicant has improved computer functionality. Applicant presents an abstract idea for which computers are invoked merely as a tool.
Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim limitations do not improve upon the technical field that the abstract idea is applied nor do they improve upon any other technical field. The claimed limitations do not improve upon the functioning of the computer itself. Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The further elements of the claims are merely directed to further abstract ideas (a plurality of exceptions December 16, 2014 Interim Guidance p 74625, Fed Register Vol 79 No 241) and in ordered combination pose a list of abstract ideas, and invoke merely as a tool what is conventional (electronic device, target device, communication channel). There is no improvement in these items, but rather they are invoked as a tool to solve a business problem (marketing), not a technical problem.
The additional elements alone or in combination are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not provide improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, and do not provide meaningful limitations beyond generic linking use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Additionally, the claims are directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements that do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because they require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are generic activities previously known to the industry. Moreover, these generic limitations do not lead to an integrated practical application because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, not meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See Alice Corp p 16 of slip op. noting that none of the hardware recited "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking ‘the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment', that is implementation via computers"(citing Bilski 561 US at 610). Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to an integrated practical application. The claim limitations do not improve upon the technical field that the abstract idea is applied nor do they improve upon any other technical field. The claimed limitations do not improve upon the functioning of the computer itself.
Moreover, these generic limitations do not constitute significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, not meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See Alice Corp p 16 of slip op. noting that none of the hardware recited "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking ‘the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment', that is implementation via computers"(citing Bilski 561 US at 610).
Moreover, mere recitation of a machine or medium (claim 1) in the preamble does not make a claim statutory under 35 U.S.C. 101, as seen in the Board of Patent Appeals Informative Opinion Ex Parte Langemyr (Appeal 2008-1495). Moreover, mere mention of a piece of a computer or processing device does not confer patentability. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v CLS Bank International ("Alice Corp") 573 US __ (2014). Incorporating the two-step test espoused in its recent decision in Mayo v. Prometheus 566 U.S. ___ (2012), the Court describes a first inquiry as to whether the claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept. If so, the Court requires a second inquiry as to whether the elements, individually or in combination, “transform” the nature of the claims into a patent-eligible invention. The Court described this second step as a search for an inventive concept, “i.e., an element or combination sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself.”
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements merely detail generic elements that implement the abstract idea. The generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea. The additional element merely instruct that the execution of the abreact idea occurs on other generic technology, but does not offer any disclosure of any additional technology beyond the abstract idea itself. Moreover, the claim steps as an ordered combination do not present significantly more. The claims are not directed to an improvement in computer functionality like in Enfish v Microsoft, but rather to an abstract idea. The claims "do nothing more than spell out what it means to 'apply it on a computer'”, Intellectual Ventures I 792 F.3d p1371 (citing Alice). Nowhere in the claims or specification is there any indication that the generic elements do something to improved hardware functionality.
The further elements of the claims are merely directed to further abstract ideas and in ordered combination pose a list of abstract ideas, and invoke merely as a tool what is generic. Here, the claims neither improve the technological infrastructure nor provide particular solutions to challenges. Rather, in ordered combination the claim limitations spell out the steps of pricing an item for sale, i.e. shopping.
In addition to these indisputably generic features electronic device, target device, communication channel, Applicant did not invent any of those features, and the claims do not recite them in a manner that produces a result that overrides the generic use of these known features. DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2014). When viewed as an ordered combination, the proposed claims recite no more than the sort of “perfectly” generic computer components employed in a customary manner that we have held insufficient to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016). We must thus conclude that the claims fail step two as well.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements merely detail generic computer processors and software that implement the abstract idea. The generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be generic in any computer implementation. The additional element merely instruct that the execution of the abstract idea occurs on other generic technology, but does not offer any disclosure of any additional technology beyond the abstract idea itself. Moreover, the claim steps as an ordered combination do not present significantly more. The claims are not directed to an improvement in computer functionality like in Enfish v Microsoft, but rather to an abstract idea. The claims "do nothing more than spell out what it means to 'apply it on a computer'”, Intellectual Ventures I 792 F.3d p1371 (citing Alice). Nowhere in the claims or specification is there any indication that the computer, processor, storage do something nongeneric such that Applicant has improved computer functionality. Applicant presents an idea for which computers are invoked as a tool.
By way of example, in Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 121 USPQ2d 1940 (Fed. Cir. 2017), the steps in the claims described "the creation of a dynamic document based upon ‘management record types’ and ‘primary record types.’" 850 F.3d at 1339-40; 121 USPQ2d at 1945-46. The claims were found to be directed to the abstract idea of "collecting, displaying, and manipulating data." 850 F.3d at 1340; 121 USPQ2d at 1946. Examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology include:
-Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48;
-Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
Here, the claims neither improve the technological infrastructure nor provide particular solutions to challenges. Rather, they spell out the steps of organizing human behavior implemented with generic technology. In addition to these indisputably conventional features, Applicant did not invent any of those features, and the claims do not recite them in a manner that produces “a result that overrides the routine and conventional” use of these known features. DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2014). When viewed as an ordered combination, the proposed claims recite no more than the sort of “perfectly conventional” generic computer components employed in a customary manner that we have held insufficient to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016). We must thus conclude that the claims fail step two as well.
Displaying a price does not add significantly more. The claim limitations alone or in ordered combination do not improve upon the technical field to which the abstract idea is applied nor do they improve upon any other technical field. The claimed limitations do not improve upon the functioning of any device itself. Wiley Encyclopedia of Computer Science and Engineering (2009) was already provided to applicant and is a general technical reference with these generic elements, which was already provided to Applicant. The reference is the kind a person of ordinary skill in the art would have “hanging on their wall“, e.g. as a pdf shortcut or icon on wallpaper of one’s computer. Display is mentioned 427 times (Wiley p.2261), memory at p. 2263 (mentioned 1700+times in Wiley), database, server p.125, server 610 times (at least e.g. p.1982), processor 639 times (e.g. p. 1242-1243), database 1728 times (e.g. p.1253), storage medium (e.g. p.131), computer (3553 times, e.g. p.283), network (at least p.1700-1707), interface for signaling (770 times at least p.1700-1707).
See MPEP 2106.05 for applicant’s generic additional elements which are generally applied.
Claims dependent from the independent claims do not cure the deficiencies and are rejected.
CLAIM REJECTIONS - 35 USC § 112, b
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112, b:
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 9 (and dependents) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) as indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
As per claim 9 it is not clear what ‘roro’ means.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for obviousness rejections in this Office Action:
A) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made
Reference text, Figs are below annotated, bold, italicized or underlined to map claim to reference.
MPEP 2123: “The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 1983) A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. V. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. Denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989).
Claims 1-4, 8-12 14 15 rejected under 35 USC 103 as obvious over Burmester (US 20160019607) in view of Bowles (US 20100088192) in view of Nguyen (US 20150309912)
PNG
media_image3.png
579
758
media_image3.png
Greyscale
CLAIM 1
1. A method for identifying target devices for processing at a consumer-operated kiosk, the method comprising:
Burmester Fig 1 & text, ¶ 13-17
[Wingdings font/0xA2] via a software application executed by a processor of an electronic device –
Burmester Fig 1 & text, ¶ 13-17
[Wingdings font/0xA2] determining one or more available communication channels of the electronic device
Abstract
… receiving a request from a mobile station to access a device appraisal service, retrieving one or more parameters associated with the mobile station, where the parameters include at least a mobile directory number (MDN) of the mobile station, automatically determining a model of the mobile station based on the MDN, displaying, at the mobile station, a web interface of the device appraisal service, providing for display in the web interface an identification of the model of the mobile station and user interface elements to receive condition information of the mobile station, determining a trade-in value of the mobile station based on the identified model and the condition information, and providing the trade-in value of the mobile station to the web interface for display at the mobile station.
Burmester Fig 1 & text, ¶ 13-23
[Wingdings font/0xA2] receiving a user request to scan for one or more target devices connected to at least one of the available communication channels
Burmester
Abstract
Systems and methods for device appraisal are described. Some implementations include receiving a request from a mobile station to access a device appraisal service, retrieving one or more parameters associated with the mobile station, where the parameters include at least a mobile directory number (MDN) of the mobile station, automatically determining a model of the mobile station based on the MDN, displaying, at the mobile station, a web interface of the device appraisal service, providing for display in the web interface an identification of the model of the mobile station and user interface elements to receive condition information of the mobile station, determining a trade-in value of the mobile station based on the identified model and the condition information, and providing the trade-in value of the mobile station to the web interface for display at the mobile station.
Burmster
¶ 13 “selecting” = receiving a user request to scan for one or more target devices connected to at least one of the available communication channels
¶ 13 “initiating or opening” = receiving a user request to scan for one or more target devices connected to at least one of the available communication channels
¶ 25, 26 “dial” = receiving a user request to scan for one or more target devices connected to at least one of the available communication channels
¶ 26 “upon receipt of the call … appraisal server 25 can receive one or more parameters associated with the mobile station”
¶ 26 states cause and effect, call and receive = request to scan target device
In ¶ 24, authentication obviously is a first step to scan to appraise the device. Here, to scan device to appraise it. Authentication of course is not a last step. Authentication is always a step to accomplish something else. Here, it’s a first step, to read mobile device to price it. ¶ 24 makes that explicit “To insure that the application service offered by the server…”. The service means appraisal service and it’s for appraising the mobile device after getting its characteristics.
Burmester at least ¶ 13, 24 client request valuation of connected devices (also Fig 1-3, ¶ 24-32) showing an electronic device (such as mobile device) via an app can initiate inquiry into valuation of target device
[0013] … allow a user of a mobile station to conveniently determine a trade-in value of the device at any time without contacting a customer service agent or even visiting a web site associated with a particular trade-in or mobile station recycling program. For example, the trade-in value may be automatically determined and displayed at the mobile station that is to be traded in by selecting a web link and providing responses to one or more mobile station condition questions. In another example, the trade-in value may be automatically determined and displayed by initiating or opening a mobile application or “app” provided on a mobile station. Because the trade-in value of the mobile station can be determined at any time without visiting a store of the wireless network provider or even visiting a separate website associated with a trade-in service, the disclosed implementations save user time and enhance user experience. Furthermore, users can receive immediate monetary rewards for their current mobile stations. The trade-in value of their current phone can be automatically applied to a new mobile station(s) or accessories. Overall, the disclosed implementations result in an increased likelihood of mobile station trade-in. This provides wireless network providers with new opportunities to upsell mobile stations, accessories and data plans.
[0023] A mobile station 13a or 13b communicates over the air with a base station 17 and through the traffic network 15 for various voice and data communications, e.g. through the Internet 23 with a server 25 and/or with application servers 31. If the mobile service carrier offers the device appraisal service, the service may be hosted on a carrier operated application server 31, for communication via the networks 15 and 29. Alternatively, the device appraisal service may be provided by a separate entity (alone or through agreements with the carrier), in which case, the service may be hosted on an application server such as server 25 connected for communication via the networks 15 and 23. Server such as 25 and 31 may provide any of a variety of common application or service functions in support of or in addition to an application program running on the mobile stations 13a and 13b. However, for purposes of further discussion, we will focus on functions thereof in support of the mobile device appraisal service. For a given service, including the device appraisal service, an application program within the mobile station 13a or 13b may be considered as a ‘client’ and the programming at 25 or 31 may be considered as the ‘server’ application for the particular service. As used herein the term appraisal refers to appraising a value (e.g., a monetary value) of any device, including, but not limited to, a mobile device. …
[0024] To insure that the application service offered by server 31 is available to only authorized devices/users, the provider of the application service also deploys an authentication server 33. The authentication server 33 could be a separate physical server as shown, or authentication server 33 could be implemented as another program module running on the same hardware platform as the server application 31. Essentially, when the server application (server 31 in our example) RECEIVES A SERVICE REQUEST FROM A CLIENT APPLICATION ON A MOBILE STATION 13A OR 13B, THE SERVER APPLICATION PROVIDES APPROPRIATE INFORMATION TO THE AUTHENTICATION SERVER 33 TO ALLOW SERVER APPLICATION 33 TO AUTHENTICATE THE MOBILE STATION 13A OR 13B as outlined herein. Upon successful authentication, the server 33 informs the server application 31, which in turn provides access to the service via data communication through the various communication elements (e.g. 29, 15 and 17) of the network 10. A similar authentication function may be provided for device appraisal service(s) offered via the server 25, either by the server 33 if there is an appropriate arrangement between the carrier and the operator of server 25, by a program on the server 25 or via a separate authentication server (not shown) connected to the Internet 23.
[0025] In some implementations, to receive a trade-in value of the mobile station 13a, a user of the mobile station 13a may dial a phone number associated with a device appraisal service. The phone number may be an abbreviated number including special characters and/or letters. In another implementation, the user may send a text message to the phone number instead of making a call to the phone number. In yet another implementation, the user may select an app on the mobile station 13a to initiate a request to have the mobile station 13a appraised by the appraisal server 25. The app may be an appraisal app provided by a wireless network provider associated with the device appraisal server 25. The appraisal app may be pre-installed on the mobile station 13a or may be downloaded by the user at any time from the appraisal server 25.
[0026] In some implementations, when the user of the mobile station 13a dials the phone number of the device appraisal service, selects an appraisal app or sends a messaging service message (e.g., Short Message Service (SMS)) to the phone number, the device appraisal server 25 receives a request from the mobile station 13a. When an abbreviated phone number is used by the user, the abbreviated number (or a vanity number) may be first translated by a wireless network provider to a conventional phone number. Abbreviated dialing is the use of a short or abbreviated phone to reach services provided by a wireless network provider. An abbreviated phone number may, for example, include two or three digits. The abbreviated phone number may include alphanumeric characters such as “*” or “#” with numeric digits or alphabets (e.g., **SERV or **BANK, etc.) Also, UPON RECEIPT OF THE CALL, message, or app selection, THE APPRAISAL SERVER 25 CAN RECEIVE ONE OR MORE PARAMETERS ASSOCIATED WITH THE MOBILE STATION 13a. The parameters include at least a mobile directory number (MDN) of the mobile station 13a. The parameters may also include, but are not limited to, an Electronic Serial Number (ESN) of the mobile station 13a and an International Mobile Station Equipment Identity (IMEI) of the mobile station 13a. The appraisal server 25 transmits the retrieved parameters including the MDN to a messaging server 31 that is configured to generate messaging service messages (e.g., SMS messages) for the device appraisal service to the MDN.
[Wingdings font/0xA2] displaying, via a display screen of the electronic device, the list of target devices to the user of the electronic device
Burmester at least Fig 2-3, corresponding text, e.g. ¶ 31-34
PNG
media_image4.png
585
937
media_image4.png
Greyscale
[Wingdings font/0xA2] providing the data obtained from at least one of the target devices from the list of target devices to a remote server
Burmester ¶ 23-28
Bowles Fig 3 & text
Burmester at least ¶ 13, 24 client request valuation of connected devices (also Fig 1-3, ¶ 24-32)
That in one place Burmester says dial a phone number doesn’t mean that in another place (¶ 13, 24).
[Wingdings font/0x77] identifying a model and/or hardware configuration of the target device based on the data
Burmester ¶ 26 29 31
NOT EXPLICIT in Burmester or Bowles is display list of target devices (plural),
[Wingdings font/0x77] adding the target device to a list of target devices
Bowles US 20100088192 Fig 2-7 & text
Burmester Fig 2-3 lists target device on the electronic device, ¶ 13
Bowles Fig 5 lists target device, e.g. 5E 5J
Bowles shows 10 electrical test cables of various types for connecting target deviceS
PNG
media_image5.png
424
569
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
389
523
media_image6.png
Greyscale
[Wingdings font/0xA2] determining, via a processor of the electronic device, one or more available communication channels of the electronic device
Bowles US 20100088192 Fig 2-7 & text ¶ 22 32-34
[Wingdings font/0xA2] for each of the available communication channels to which a target device is connected
Bowles US 20100088192 Fig 2-7 & text
[Wingdings font/0xA8] electronically obtaining, by the electronic device, data transmitted by the target device over the communication channel
Bowles US 20100088192 Fig 2-7 & text, e.g. ¶ 58 63 67-71, 86-94
[Wingdings font/0xA2] for each connected target device from which data is obtained
Bowles US 20100088192 Fig 2-7 & text
[Wingdings font/0x77] identifying a model and/or hardware configuration of the target device based on the data
Burmester ¶ 26 29 31
Bowles US 20100088192 Fig 2-7 & text ¶ 20 22 23 30 32 35-37 45-46 Fig 3 & text
[Wingdings font/0x77] adding the target device to a list of target devices
Bowles US 20100088192 Fig 2-7 & text
It would have been obvious at the time of invention to combine Burmester, Bowles. Both obtain device characteristics to provide a price for user wanting to trade-in their old device, old iPhone, old whatever. Each is analogous to the claim, each is analogous to one another. The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Therefore all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
PNG
media_image7.png
451
609
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
672
447
media_image8.png
Greyscale
To have deviceS plural is obvious repetition MPEP 2144.04 of each of the teachings of Burmester, Bowles.
Moreover,
Nguyen has an electronic device ¶ 15 with a display Fig 1-2. See also Nguyen ¶ 4, 6-20 23 – 31 34 36 38 42 44-49 51 52 58 (various types of deviceS in various conditions) (Nguyen at least Fig 1-2 ¶ 30 ‘user is then aware of the potential resale value’).
Nguyen:
[0008] A need therefore exists for an automated device that assists a salesperson in ascertaining the condition of a used electronic device, verifying that it is not stolen, and setting an appropriate price for the device, and enables the evaluation task to be performed faster.
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
[0010] Another object of the present invention is to enable a salesperson to Identify an electronic device by model, serial number, ESN, IMEI, manufacturer name.
[0011] Another object of the present invention is to verify the functionality and battery capacity of an electronic device.
[0014] For purposes of the present disclosure, an “electronic device” or a “device under test” shall mean any consumer electronic device such as a smartphone, cell phone, mp3 player, camera, gaming device, tablet, laptop, or other similar devices.
[0015] The system of the present invention comprises a test machine, said test machine comprising a user interface, a memory, a device interface for connecting to the device under test, a network connection for connecting to a server, and a processor, said processor configured to perform at least one of the following: identify the manufacturer, model, and device ID of the device under test, perform a functional evaluation on the device under test, evaluate the cosmetic condition of the device under test, determine the resale value of the device under test based on the results of the above evaluations, and display the resale value of the device under test on the user interface. The test machine may also comprise a battery charging circuit for charging the battery on the device under test.
[0016] In an embodiment, the processor can also be configured to erase the data on the device under test, transfer data or apps from the device under test to another device or to the cloud, or install apps on the device under test.
[0020] In another embodiment, the system of the present invention further comprises a scan module for scanning the device under test to produce at least one image of the device under test; the processor is then configured to evaluate the at least one image to determine the cosmetic condition of the device under test.
[0021] In an embodiment, the processor evaluates the functionality of the device under test by testing at least one of the following: the battery, at least one camera, at least one of the buttons, the touchscreen, the display, the wi-fi connection, the cellular transmitter and receiver, the Bluetooth connection, the microphone and speaker, the biometric scanner, the NFC function, the processor, the memory, the light sensor, the GPS function, the gyroscope, the barometer function, the infrared transmitter and receiver.
[0023] The method of the present invention comprises connecting the device under test to a test machine, using the test machine to identify the manufacturer, model, operating system, and identification number under test; determining whether the device under test is likely to have been stolen and rejecting it if it is; performing a functional test on the device using the test machine; performing a cosmetic test on the device; determining a resale value for the device; and offering remuneration to the owner of the device under test.
[0024] The functional test preferably comprises testing at least one of the following functions of the device under test: the battery, at least one camera, at least one of the buttons, the touchscreen, the display, the wi-fi connection, the cellular transmitter and receiver, the Bluetooth connection, the microphone and speaker, the biometric scanner, the NFC function, the processor, the memory, the light sensor, the GPS function, the gyroscope, the barometer function, the infrared transmitter and receiver.
[0034] In an embodiment, the method of the present invention further comprises determining whether a battery of the device under test is sufficiently charged for the other steps of the method to be performed. If the battery is not sufficiently charged, the method of the present invention further comprises charging the battery to at least a sufficient level to enable the functional and cosmetic tests to be performed.
[0036] In an embodiment, the method of the present invention further comprises installing at least one app on the device under test.
[0038] In an embodiment, the step of determining the resale price for the device comprises downloading a price table from a server, looking up device information in the price table, and determining a price associated with the device identification, functional evaluation, and cosmetic condition of the device under test.
[0042] FIG. 1 shows a block diagram of the preferred embodiment of the system of the present invention. In its preferred embodiment, the system of the present invention comprises a test machine with a processor 100, a memory 110, a communications interface 120, a device interface 130, a battery testing and charging module 150, and a user interface 140. In an embodiment, the user interface 140 comprises a tablet or smartphone, smart mobile device or similar device connected to the test machine, either wirelessly or by a cable. The user interface may also be a dedicated touchscreen, a monitor and keyboard, or any other display and input device commonly available on the market. The communications interface is preferably connected to the Internet wirelessly as shown in the figure, but may also be connected via a cable.
[0044] Battery charging module 150 preferably performs the following functions. First of all, it determines the condition of the battery of the device under test connected to the device interface 130. If the battery is determined to be insufficiently charged, the battery charging module 150 charges the battery. In an embodiment, the processor 100 determines the minimum battery charge level to which the battery needs to be charged for the functional and cosmetic test to be performed on the device under test, and directs the battery charging module to charge the battery to that minimum level. This saves time and electricity.
[0045] The device interface 130 is preferably a cable that connects to the device under test. In an embodiment, the device interface 130 is a wireless connection. In another embodiment, the device interface 130 is a USB port to which multiple different cables may be connected, depending on which device is being tested. In the preferred embodiment, the device interface 130 is able to identify when a device under test is connected to the system, either by grounding a wire (in case of a cable) or by wirelessly connecting to the device under test (in case of a wireless connection).
[0046] In an embodiment (not shown), the system of the present invention also comprises a printer (for printing receipts, forms, and other documents), a fingerprint reader, a magnetic stripe reader for reading driver's licenses and other documents, and a camera for taking photographs of the user.
[0048] FIG. 3 shows a flowchart of the preferred embodiment of the method of the present invention. First, an electronic device under test is connected to the system 300. The system first determines whether or not the battery of the device under test is too low for the device to be tested 305, and charges the battery 310 if it is too low. The charge is preferably a rapid charge so that the testing process does not take too long. In the preferred embodiment, the battery is not charged to 100%, but rather to the minimum level necessary to perform functional and cosmetic testing on the device. This saves even more time.
[0049] After the battery is charged 310, the device is identified 315. This preferably includes information such as the manufacturer, model, operating system, device ID, and any other information needed to identify the device under test.
[0051] After that step, the system preferably performs a functional test on the device 330. Such a functional test may test any function or functions of the device under test. For example, the system may test the battery, at least one camera, at least one of the buttons, the touchscreen, the display, the wi-fi connection, the cellular transmitter and receiver, the Bluetooth connection, the microphone and speaker, …
[0052] In an embodiment, the system may also test the functioning of the user's cellular provider account by making a phone call (not shown). If the phone call goes through, the account is assumed to be active. If the phone call results in a message that the account is suspended or inactive, the account will be assumed to be suspended or inactive. This information may be of use to a cellular service provider.
PNG
media_image9.png
695
379
media_image9.png
Greyscale
[0058] Once the functional and cosmetic tests are performed, the system then looks up the value of the device 340 and displays it for the user 345. This may be done by connecting to a server that comprises a database, said database comprising pricing information for various types of devices in various conditions. In an alternate embodiment, to speed up the process, the system may download a daily table of pricing information from the server at regular intervals, and use the stored copy of this table for looking up pricing information during a transaction.
[0059] The user is then prompted to accept or reject the price offer. If the user rejects the price offer, the transaction is aborted and the user takes back their device. If the user accepts the offer, the transaction proceeds. Any personal data or apps on the device may be erased or transferred to another device or to the cloud 350. In an embodiment, new apps may be installed on the device as well (not shown).
It would have been obvious looking at Burmester to consult the works of colleagues and find Nguyen. And Burmester says appraisal of device under test can be on the device under test or not Burmester ¶ 23, two obvious alternatives. It would have thus been obvious to combine Burmster and Nguyen for the predictable result of an electronic device testing a test device and displaying on electronic device a list of connected target devices. It would have been obvious at the time of invention to combine Burmester, Nguyen. Both obtain device characteristics to provide a price for user wanting to trade-in their old device, old iPhone, old whatever. Each is analogous to the claim, each is analogous to one another. The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Therefore all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
All 3 references and the claim teach device discovery to trade in an electronic device for a price. In all three what is reasonably pertinent is what is the nature of the device being connected and the nature of the connection. Burmester teaches device discovery (Burmester at least Fig 1, 3-7, e.g. ¶ 24-34, and after device is discovered user can confirm/deny e.g. “Yes, this is my device” ¶ 31 and get a quote ¶ 32) but simply doesn’t use the words device discovery
[Wingdings font/0xA2] analyzing the data received from the software application to generate a processing evaluation for the target device associated with said data
Burmester Abstract determine value
Bowles Fig 3
Nguyen Fig 2
[Wingdings font/0xA2] associating the processing evaluation with a unique identifier for later retrieval by the consumer-operated kiosk
Burmester Fig 2 & text, ¶ 33 quote number encoded (bar, QR, etc)
Bowles Fig 3, ¶ 20-21,26 42 bar code associated with phone
Nguyen Fig 2 ¶ 39-30, claim 10
CLAIM 2
2. The method of claim 1 wherein the
[Wingdings font/0xA2] electronic device is a mobile phone
Burmester Fig 1 and corresponding text ¶ 23
Bowles Fig 3 5 & text
Nguyen ¶ 14
Motivation to combine in claim 1
CLAIM 3
3. The method of claim 1 wherein the
[Wingdings font/0xA2] electronic device is a tablet computer, laptop computer, or desktop computer Burmester ¶ 17 23 57
Bowles ¶ 5-6
Motivation to combine in claim 1
CLAIM 4
4. The method of claim 1, further comprising
[Wingdings font/0xA2] transmitting a request for target device information to target devices connected to a communication channel
Burmester Fig 1 and corresponding text, e.g. ¶ 24 request from client, ¶ 25, ¶ 26 request from mobile
CLAIM 8 8. The method of claim 7 wherein the information includes a
[Wingdings font/0xA2] code identifying the manufacture and/or the model of the connected target device
Burmester ¶ 26 29 31
CLAIM 9 8. The method of claim 1 wherein evaluating one roro more of the target devices for processing includes providing a price for one or more of the target devices the list of target devices includes
[Wingdings font/0xA2] displaying the price via an app of the electronic device
Burmester at least ¶ 13 trade-in value may be displayed and ¶ 23 rendering obvious displaying price via app of electronic Bowles also displays price (albeit not an app of electronic device)
CLAIM 10 10. The method of claim 9 wherein the software
[Wingdings font/0xA2] application is configured to download a database of prices for electronic devices and use information about a make and model of the at least one target device to determine a price for one or more of the target devices from the list of target devices
Nguyen US 20150309912 ¶ 4, 6-20 23 – 31
Motivation to combine in claim 1
CLAIM 11 NOT EXPLICIT in Oztaskent
10. The method of claim 1 further comprising
[Wingdings font/0xA2] via app the software application performing one or more tests to reveal a condition of the connected target device
Nguyen US 20150309912 ¶ 4, 6-20 23 – 31
Burmester already has mobile app at least ¶ 13 18 23-26
Motivation to combine in claim 1
CLAIM 12 Oztaskent/Burmester/Nguyen shows the above and NOT EXPLICIT in Oztaskent
10. The method of claim 11 wherein the one or more tests include tests of one or more of
[Wingdings font/0xA2] processor performance, battery charging rate, and/or battery capacity
Nguyen US 20150309912 ¶ 10 15-18 21 23 -31
Bowles ¶ 20 32 34 49-50 89
Motivation to combine in claim 1
CLAIM 14
(New) The method of claim 1 wherein
[Wingdings font/0xA2] the target device includes a target device display screen and
wherein the method further comprises:
via the software application-
[Wingdings font/0xA2] causing the target device to display a test pattern on the target device display screen
[Wingdings font/0xA2] detecting user interaction with the target device display screen and
[Wingdings font/0xA2] determining a condition of the target device display screen based at least partially on the detected user interaction
[Wingdings font/0xA2] wherein the processing evaluation is further based on the determined condition of the target device display screen.
Burmester Fig 2
Nguyen ¶ 15 24 test of touch screen
CLAIM 15
(New) The method of claim 1, further comprising:
[Wingdings font/0xA2] obtaining, via a camera of the electronic device, one or more images of the target device
[Wingdings font/0xA2] transmitting the one or more images to the remote server for analysis and
[Wingdings font/0xA2] obtaining, from the remote server, information associated with a physical condition of the target device,
[Wingdings font/0xA2] wherein the processing evaluation is further based on the physical condition of the target device.
Bowles Fig 3 Fig 6 & text ¶ 46 show electronic device take picture of target device and send to server
Claim 6 7 16 rejected under 35 USC 103 as obvious over Burmester/Bowles/Nguyen in view of Oztaskent US 9621947
PNG
media_image10.png
782
557
media_image10.png
Greyscale
CLAIM 6
6. The method of claim 1 wherein
[Wingdings font/0xA2] obtaining data transmitted by a target device includes inspecting data packets for a hardware address of the target device
See Burmester’s “data packet” network Fig 1, ¶ 19, 22, 40, 45, 53, 56
Oztaskent Fig 1 6:10-20 address
Oztaskent Fig 1, step 120, 130 detecting a connection, corresponding text 5:15-35
Although Oztaskent detects target devices Fig 1 and corresponding text 5:15-6:55 after computing device (which can be mobile device) initiates target discovery 5:54-6:55, AND
Oztaskent computing device initiates device discovery 5:45—6:3
All 4 references (Burmester, Bowles, Nguyen, Oztaskent) and the claim teach device discovery to trade in an electronic device for a price. In three what is pertinent is the nature of the device being connected and the nature of the connection. Burmester teaches device discovery (Burmester at least Fig 1, 3-7, e.g. ¶ 24-34, and after device is discovered user can confirm/deny e.g. “Yes, this is my device” ¶ 31 and get a quote ¶ 32) but simply doesn’t use the words device discovery. Oztaskent is device discovery.
It would have been obvious at the time of invention to add Oztaskent to Burmester. The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Therefore all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
“The court wrongly concluded that because Asano’s primary purpose was solving the constant ratio problem, an inventor considering how to put a sensor on an adjustable pedal would have no reason to consider putting it on the Asano pedal. It is common sense that familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes, and a person of ordinary skill often will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.”
KSR v Teleflex (2007)
CLAIM 7
7. The method of claim 1 wherein
[Wingdings font/0xA2] obtaining data transmitted by a target device includes inspecting data packets (Oztasken at least 6:10-20, inspecting strings is inspecting data packets even though Oztaskent doesn’t use the exact word data packet Nevertheless see also
Burmester’s data packet network Fig 1, ¶ 19, 22, 40, 45, 53, 56) for information describing the target device (Oztaskent Fig 1 6:10-20 address) transmitted by a software application of the target device (Oztaskent Fig 1 and corresponding text Burmester Fig 1 and corresponding text )
All 4 references (Burmester, Bowles, Nguyen, Oztaskent) and the claim teach device discovery to trade in an electronic device for a price. In three what is pertinent is the nature of the device being connected and the nature of the connection. Burmester teaches device discovery (Burmester at least Fig 1, 3-7, e.g. ¶ 24-34, and after device is discovered user can confirm/deny e.g. “Yes, this is my device” ¶ 31 and get a quote ¶ 32) but simply doesn’t use the words device discovery. Oztaskent is device discovery.
It would have been obvious at the time of invention to add Oztaskent to Burmester. The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Therefore all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
CLAIM 16
(New) The method of claim 1, wherein electronically obtaining the data includes:
[Wingdings font/0xA2] determining a type of the communication channel connecting the target device to the electronic device; and
[Wingdings font/0xA2] requesting data from the target device over the communication channel, wherein the data requested is based at least partially on the type of the communication channel.
See Burmester’s “data packet” network Fig 1, ¶ 19, 22, 40, 45, 53, 56
Oztaskent Fig 1 6:10-20 address
Oztaskent Fig 1, step 120, 130 detecting a connection, corresponding text 5:15-35
Although Oztaskent detects target devices Fig 1 and corresponding text 5:15-6:55 after computing device (which can be mobile device) initiates target discovery 5:54-6:55, AND
Oztaskent computing device initiates device discovery 5:45—6:3
All 4 references (Burmester, Bowles, Nguyen, Oztaskent) and the claim teach device discovery to trade in an electronic device for a price. In three what is pertinent is the nature of the device being connected and the nature of the connection. Burmester teaches device discovery (Burmester at least Fig 1, 3-7, e.g. ¶ 24-34, and after device is discovered user can confirm/deny e.g. “Yes, this is my device” ¶ 31 and get a quote ¶ 32) but simply doesn’t use the words device discovery. Oztaskent is device discovery.
It would have been obvious at the time of invention to add Oztaskent to Burmester. The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Therefore all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Claim 5 rejected under 35 USC 103 as obvious over Burmester/Bowles/Nguyen in view of Gregersen US 20110055322
CLAIM 5
NOT EXPLICIT in Burmester is operating system API5. The method of claim 1 wherein
[Wingdings font/0xA2] obtaining data transmitted by a target device includes querying an operating system API on the electronic device
Burmester Fig 1 and corresponding text
NOT EXPLICIT in Burmester is the exact term operating system API but Gregersen US 20110055322 shows request to operating system API at least ¶ 65
It would have been obvious at the time of invention to add Gregersen to Burmester. The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Therefore all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Claim 13 rejected under 35 USC 103 as obvious over Burmester/Bowles/Nguyen in view of Kim US 8401914
CLAIM 13 10. The method of claim 1 further comprising
[Wingdings font/0xA2] providing the user a confirmation code to bring to a kiosk to identify the connected target device
Kim US 8401914 11:35-45 14:29-45 22:24-47
It would have been obvious at the time of invention to combine Burmester, Kim. The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Therefore all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Note
Claims 16-20 not rejected under 35 USC 101.
Claim 16 rejected under 35 USC 103.
Claims 17-20 not rejected. Allowable claims cannot proceed to allowance in a case still containing rejected claims.
RESPONSE TO REMARKS
Applicant amendment remarks fully considered but not persuasive.
The claims are directed to pricing a good for sale i.e. shopping (demander shops for a buyer of device, supplier shops for a demander with a device to sell)
More specifically,
user requests device scan, model is ascertained, list of devices is displayed with price to user.
Applicant says no abstract idea b/c not organizing human activity nor mental process (BRIEF pp. 14 bottom).
EXAMINER RESPONSE:
The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim(s) 1-13 is/are directed to one or more abstract idea(s). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea(s).
Step 1
The claims and their dependents are directed to one of the statutory classes (1 process). The claims herein are directed to subject matter which would be classified under one of the listed statutory classifications (i.e., 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (hereinafter “PEG”) “PEG” Step 1=Yes).
Step 2a
Prong 1
The claim(s) is/are directed to CERTAIN METHODS OF ORGANIZING HUMAN BEHAVIOR and MENTAL PROCESS.
[Wingdings font/0x9F] fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk)
[Wingdings font/0x9F] commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)
[Wingdings font/0x9F] managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions
Alice
clearinghouse
implemented by computer
Here
Price an item for sale, shopping
implemented by computer
Bilski
hedge
implemented by computer
The claim 1 is/are directed to data gathering for pricing a good for sale, shopping.
Claim 1
2019 Revised Guidance 84 Fed Reg 50
1. A method performed by an electronic device to identify target devices for processing at a consumer-operated kiosk, the method comprising:
Statutory process (method)
35 USC 101
Trade-in values are pertinent to fundamental economic practice(e.g. A sale transaction with trade-in credit)
determining, via a processor of the electronic device, one or more available communication channels of the electronic device
Insignificant extra solution activity, e.g. Data gathering via generic element generally applied mpep 2106.05 and USPTO 2019 revised 101 guidance 55, note 31
receiving, via a processor of the electronic device, a user request to scan for one or more target devices connected to at least one of the available communication channels
Insignificant extra solution activity, e.g. Data gathering via generic element generally applied mpep 2106.05 and USPTO 2019 revised 101 guidance 55, note 31
for each of the available communication channels to which a target device is connected
Insignificant extra solution activity, e.g. Data gathering via generic element generally applied mpep 2106.05 and USPTO 2019 revised 101 guidance 55, note 31
electronically obtaining, by the electronic device, data transmitted by the target device over the communication channel
[Wingdings font/0xA2] for each connected target device from which data is obtained
[Wingdings font/0x77] identifying a model and/or hardware configuration of the target device based on the data and
[Wingdings font/0x77] adding the target device to a list of target devices
Abstract idea, i.e. mental process. E.g. concept performed in the mind including observation, evaluation, judgement Rev. Guid. 52. Additional elements [ electronically, electronic, channel] are generic
displaying, via a display screen of the electronic device, the list of target devices to the user of the electronic device
Insignificant extra solution activity, e.g. Data gathering via generic element generally applied mpep 2106.05 and USPTO 2019 revised 101 guidance 55, note 31
providing a price for at least one of the target devices based on the obtained data, wherein providing the price includes displaying the price via the display screen
Trade-in values are pertinent to fundamental economic practice(e.g. A sale transaction with trade-in credit). Display price is insignificant extra-solution activity MPEP 2106.05d
Applicant’s Specification ¶ 23, 30 says the invention is pricing a good for sale, shopping.
Thus, the claims “recite” an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong 1=Yes).
Additional element(s) or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se amount(s) to: electronic device, target device, communication channel. These are generic elements, MPEP 2106.05.
Pricing a good for sale is organizing human activity. It is fundamental economics, an issue of supply and demand. Supplier gets device model from demander and returns a price. A demander bringing in a device for trade and the counter-party looking the device over and making an offer for that device is organizing human activity, fundamental economics, longstanding commercial practice. It’s also a MENTAL PROCESS; counter-party uses brain to observe the device, evaluate the device, and make a judgement, e.g. make an offer and at what price --- contrary to Appellant first full ¶ BRIEF p15.
Appellant prefers to describe the invention as a method by an electronic device to ID devices at a kiosk (BRIEF p15 top).
But the same could be said of the claims in Alice Corp and Bilski. But both were ineligible under 101.
Clearly, Appellant arguments run counter the Supreme Court decisions.
If the law were as Applicant says case, then Alice Corp v. CLS Bank could never have been decided as it was. Instead, the Supreme Court would have said the invention was a method performed by an electronic device (not a clearinghouse implemented by computer).
If Appellant’s interpretation of the law were correct, then Kappos v Bilski could never have been decided as it was. Instead, the Supreme Court would have said the invention was a method performed by an electronic device (not a hedge implemented by computer).
Clearly, the PTO is bound by the decisions of the Supreme Court.
.
CLAIM CAN BE PERFORMED MENTALLY, IS ORGANIZING HUMAN ACTIVITY
Applicant says that in one’s head, one can’t gather data, determine price, return price to phone owner. (BRIEF p15)
Examiner response
But the rejection is not merely based on the abstract idea but further based on the fact that applicant merely uses generic elements generally applied to execute the idea – similar to Alice and Bilski. And clearly but for generic elements generally applied people have observed an item for sale, evaluated it, and made a judgement using their own brain for thousands of years.
Applicant says there’s an integrated practical application,
but
unfortunately the invention is more than mere instructions to apply the idea on generic elements generally applied.
Applicant says (BRIEF p19)
the data gathering is fundamental to the claimed method
Examiner response
By that logic, the data gathering in Alice and Bilski would cause the claims in those cases to be 101 eligible but instead the Supreme Court said they are not 101 eligible. Thus, neither is Applicant claim eligible.
Applicant says (BRIEF p20) that the whole claims is not well-understood, conventional, routine
Examiner response
Examiner had never argued the whole claims was well-understood, conventional, routine but rather a) the claim is an abstract idea which is computer implemented, i.e. implemented with generic elements generally applied.
Applicant says (BRIEF p20 bottom) that the claims provide meaningful limitations b/c user can find out price of iPhone counter-party makes
Examiner response
But it is organizing human activity and mental steps to find that out. What applicant says is significantly more is nothing more. Instead, unfortunately, it’s just reiterating the abstract idea itself.
The above reasons and those below in the 101 rejection apply to claim 11 (which simply tacks onto the abstract idea the generic element of app). Adding the app adds nothing and changes none of the arguments Examiner has already made. Pricing a good for sale is organizing human activity, it is a mental process, and tacking on app is as persuasive as computer-implementing the clearinghouse in Alice or the hedge in Bilski – it’s of no consequence unfortunately.
Th claims "do nothing more than spell out what it means to 'apply it on a computer'”, Intellectual Ventures I 792 F.3d p1371 (citing Alice). Nowhere in the claims or specification is there any indication the additional elements do something nongeneric so such that Appellant has improved computer functionality. Appellant presents an idea for which computers are invoked as a tool.
Under step two, claims that are “directed to” a patent-ineligible concept, yet also “improve an existing technological process,” are sufficient to “transform the process into an inventive application” of the patent ineligible concept. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 1358 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1299) (discussing Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981). The claims do not do that. The claims are directed to shopping which is 101 ineligible (CAFC’s Mortgage Grader decision). The claims "do nothing more than spell out what it means to 'apply it on a computer'”, Intellectual Ventures I 792 F.3d p1371 (citing Alice). Thus, applicant argument is not persuasive and, for the above reasons, these rejections should be sustained.
Here, the claims neither improve the technological infrastructure nor provide particular solutions to challenges. Rather, in ordered combination the claim limitations spell out the steps of calculating a number using generic technology.
Appellant simply computer implements an abstract idea with generic elements that are generally applied.
In addition to these indisputably generic features, Applicant did not invent any of those features, and the claims do not recite them in a manner that produces a result that overrides the generic use of these known features. DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2014). When viewed as an ordered combination, the proposed claims recite no more than the sort of “perfectly” generic computer components employed in a customary manner that we have held insufficient to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
We must thus conclude that the claims fail step two as well.
103
Oztazkent swapped for new art Bowles in a new art rejection below on new art supplanting previous rejection.
Examiner nevertheless addresses Applicant arguments anyway.
Applicant has 5 arguments.
1st Applicant says (BRIEF p25-26) secondary reference Burmester doesn’t show
PNG
media_image11.png
75
478
media_image11.png
Greyscale
because
Burmester [13] contradicts claim language, but Ex’r says see Burmester ¶ 13
Burmester has 1 device involved in appraisal but claims calls for 2. Ex’r says see Burmester ¶ 23-5, Fig 1
BURMESTER
PNG
media_image12.png
396
353
media_image12.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image13.png
489
367
media_image13.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image14.png
547
358
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Examiner response
As to i)
Burmester doesn’t contradict the claim; that in one place Burmester says dial a phone number doesn’t mean that in another place (¶ 13, 24) Burmester doesn’t teach the claim. If Applicant were right, then one could prove a negative with a positive. Unfortunately this is not logical.
As to ii)
Applicant argument leads to anomalous result of a device appraising itself
Burmester at least Fig 1 & text [Wingdings font/0xE0] 2 devices; see Burmester ¶ 23 24 box and highlight showing e.g. server and client
2nd Applicant argues
PNG
media_image15.png
27
474
media_image15.png
Greyscale
Examiner response
Oztaskent adds to a list Fig 3 devices that have been detected in Fig 1 (devices are what applicant prefers to call ‘target’ devices) -- like Applicant’s phone (Fig 1). Applicant is assuming ‘target’ matters. But ‘target is neither structure nor function.
PNG
media_image16.png
747
436
media_image16.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image17.png
817
578
media_image17.png
Greyscale
3rd Applicant
PNG
media_image18.png
70
499
media_image18.png
Greyscale
is asserted by Examiner to be shown by each of Oztaskent and Burmester but Applicant says
Oztaskent’s devices are not targeted for sale
Burmester can’t show targeted devices (plural) b/c Burmester has only 1 device
Burmester Fig 2 and 3 doesn’t show targeted devices
As to i)
Applicant assumes ‘target’ matters, but ‘target is neither structure nor function.
As to ii)
Burmester at least Fig 1 & text [Wingdings font/0xE0] 2 devices; see Burmester ¶ 23 24 red box and blue highlight
As to iii)
Reader can look for her/himself at the Fig 2 included in p13 most recent rejection
PNG
media_image19.png
531
819
media_image19.png
Greyscale
Burmester Figs 2, 3 list a detected device (‘targeted’ for sale). Burmester doesn’t show devices plural, but Oztaskent shows plural devices contented (Fig 3). And Nguyen ¶ 30 devices (plural).
4th Applicant argues
PNG
media_image20.png
68
517
media_image20.png
Greyscale
Burmester & Nguyen teach sell old phone. So Applicant instead attacks Oztaskent. Applicant is connecting a devices to determine its characteristics, just like Oztaskent (3:45-4:53, 5:6-7:60). Once one discovers what device is detected (Oztaskent), it’s obvious to search other device discovery teachings and find Burmester and the predictable result is to use device discovery to sell an old device (Burmester and Nguyen).
5th Applicant argues Oztazkent is not analogous art.
Applicant is connecting a devices to determine its characteristics, just like Oztaskent (3:45-4:53, 5:6-7:60). Once one discovers what device is detected (Oztaskent), it’s obvious to search other device discovery teaches and find Burmester and the predictable result is that one can use device discovery to sell an old device (Burmester and Nguyen). In all 3 -- Oztasken, Burmester, Nguyen -- the first thing one does is device discovery: connect a device to determine device characteristics.
Applicant’s argument cannot be reconciled with KSR which says
“The court wrongly concluded that because Asano’s primary purpose was solving the constant ratio problem, an inventor considering how to put a sensor on an adjustable pedal would have no reason to consider putting it on the Asano pedal. It is common sense that familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes, and a person of ordinary skill often will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.”
KSR v Teleflex (2007)
Combining Oztaskent with Burmester is proper.
While Oztaskent is combinable with Burmester, Bowles is better. Examiner rejects on new art Bowles.
As to applicant argument that
Improvement
Examiner
But the claims haven’t improved a field. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements merely detail generic elements that implement the abstract idea. The generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea. The additional element merely instruct that the execution of the abreact idea occurs on other generic technology, but does not offer any disclosure of any additional technology beyond the abstract idea itself. Moreover, the claim steps as an ordered combination do not present significantly more. The claims are not directed to an improvement in computer functionality like in Enfish v Microsoft, but rather to an abstract idea. The claims "do nothing more than spell out what it means to 'apply it on a computer'”, Intellectual Ventures I 792 F.3d p1371 (citing Alice). Nowhere in the claims or specification is there any indication that the computer, processor, medium do something to improved hardware functionality.
The further elements of the claims are merely directed to further abstract ideas and in ordered combination pose a list of abstract ideas, and invoke merely as a tool what is generic. There is no improvement in these items, but rather they are invoked as a tool to solve a business problem (targeted marketing), not a technical problem.
As to applicant argument that
Ex Parte Desjardins (remarks p9)
Examiner
Examiner requests how it could be related to this case. No ML here.
As to applicant argument that
Additional elements … improvements (remarks p9-10)
Examiner
The further elements of the claims are merely directed to further abstract ideas and in ordered combination pose a list of abstract ideas, and invoke merely as a tool what is generic. There is no improvement in these items, but rather they are invoked as a tool to solve a business problem (targeted marketing), not a technical problem.
As to applicant argument that
Bascom (remarks p11)
Examiner
The facts there (filtering) are inapposite to the facts here (sales).
POINT OF CONTACT
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BREFFNI X BAGGOT whose telephone number is (571)272-7154. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8a-10a, 12p-6p.
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, Waseem Ashraf can be reached at 571-270-3948. 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.
BREFFNI BAGGOT
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3621
/BREFFNI BAGGOT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621