DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/13/25 has been entered.
Amendment of the Claims
The amendment filed 10/13/25 has been entered.
(1) Amended independent claim: 1 and 14.
Claims Status
Claims pending: 1, 3-22. Claims 17-21 are withdrawn.
Active claims: 1, 3-16 and 22.
The claims comprising of 2 groups:
(1) Apparatus1: 1, 3-13, and 22.
(2) Apparatus2: 14-16.
As of 10/13/25, Claim 14, which is broader, is shown below.
14. (Currently Amended) A consumer-operated kiosk for receiving an electronic device from a user, the kiosk comprising:
[1] a housing having an inspection area therein;
[2] an inspection plate within the inspection area, the inspection plate configured to support the electronic device thereon at a receiving position relative to the housing within the inspection area;
[3] a camera positioned within the housing and having a field of view that includes the inspection plate, wherein the camera is configured to capture images and/or video of the electronic device while the electronic device is supported on the inspection plate at the receiving position;
[4] a deflecting plate positioned at least partially below the inspection plate within the housing;
[5] a first storage bin positioned at least partially below the deflecting plate;
[6] a second storage bin positioned adjacent the first storage bin and at least partially below
the deflecting plate; and
[7] a processor operably connected to the inspection plate and to the deflecting plate, wherein the processor is configured to execute computer-readable instructions to:
[8] cause the inspection plate to tilt to direct the electronic device from the position toward the deflecting plate; and
[9] cause the deflecting plate to move between-
[10] a first position wherein the deflecting plate directs the electronic device toward the first storage bin; and
[11] a second position wherein the deflecting plate directs the electronic device toward the second storage bin.
Note: for referential purpose, numerals are added to the beginning of each element.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
On October 10, 2007, the Patent Office issued the "Examination Guidelines for Determining Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. 103 in View of the Supreme Court Decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.," 73 Fed. Reg. 57,526 (2007) (hereinafter the Examination Guidelines). Section III is entitled "Rationales to support rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103." Within this section is the following quote from the Supreme Court: "rejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by merely conclusory statements; instead there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1741 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
Under the Examination Guidelines, the following is a list of rationales that may be used to support a finding of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103:
(a) combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(b) simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(c) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(d) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(e) "Obvious to try" choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(f) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art; and
(g) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation (TSM) in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Each rationale is resolved using the Graham factual inquiries.
Claims 14, 16 (system1) and claims 1, 3-11 and 22 (system2) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious over:
Names Publications:
(1) BOWLES ET AL. US 2013/0.144.797, and
(2) ROOKE US 1,730,015, and
(3) PHAM US 2020/0.175.481.
As for independent claims 14, BOWLES ET AL. discloses a consumer-operated kiosk for receiving an electronic device from a user, the kiosk comprising:
[1] a housing having an inspection area therein;
{see Fig. 1, housing 105, and respective [0057]}
PNG
media_image1.png
407
292
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
385
525
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[2] an inspection plate within the inspection area, the inspection plate configured to support the electronic device at a position within the inspection area;
{See Fig. 1C, inspection area 106, and [0057 inspection area 106], the inspection plate is the plate in the inspection area 106 where the electronic device is put on top for inspection, this could also read on transparent plate 545 when the plate is transferred to an inspection Area 106, see Fig. 3B, and par. [0060], see Fig. 4, electronic device 150, at a position (in the middle) of the inspection plate 545, Fig. 9, support plate 545, electronic device 150,
PNG
media_image3.png
284
276
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
519
525
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
360
338
media_image5.png
Greyscale
[3] a camera positioned within the housing and having a field of view that includes the inspection plate, wherein the camera is configured to capture images and/or video of the electronic device while the electronic device is on the inspection plate and at the position;
{See Fig. 9, camera 610, electronic device 150, inspection plate 545, and [0066].
PNG
media_image6.png
286
422
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
552
500
media_image7.png
Greyscale
[4] a deflecting plate positioned at least partially below the inspection plate within the housing;
{see Fig. 4A, plate 540, which serves as “deflecting plate”}
PNG
media_image8.png
264
304
media_image8.png
Greyscale
[5] a first storage bin positioned at least partially below the deflecting plate;
{see Fig. 3B, Bin 555, or [0060 bin 555…]}
[7] a processor operably connected to the inspection plate and to the deflecting plate, wherein the processor is configured to execute computer readably instructions to:
{see [0061] which teaches “automatic transport and binning of an electronic device 150 within the internal mechanism 101 of the kiosk 100 which inherently includes a processor operably connected to the inspection plate and the deflection plate…]}
PNG
media_image9.png
392
525
media_image9.png
Greyscale
[8] cause the inspection plate to tilt to direct the electronic device toward the deflecting plate;
{see discussion in [0061] with respect to the interaction between plate 545 to binning or deflection plate 540 which deflects the electronic device toward the storage bin.}
[9] cause the deflecting plate to move toward:
[10] a first position wherein the deflecting plate directs the electronic device toward the first storage bin; and
{see Fig. 4C and respective [0061 …the binning plate 540 is slowly lowered on one side to open into the bin 555…]}
BOWLES ET AL. fairly teaches the independent claim except for explicitly discloses: (1) the inspection plate serves two functions: (i) receiving the inspected item (electronic device) and (ii) viewing/inspecting the item (electronic device), and (2) tilting of the deflection plate to drop (direct) the electronic device to lower position, i.e. another item (device) holder such as a plate, and (3) the moving of the deflecting plate to a different position, second position, for storing the inspected item (device) such as different (2nd) storage bin/hopper.
In a container for handling collected examined item, i.e. a fare, ROOKE teaches the use of the inspection plate, see Fig. 1, element 63, as both (i) receiving the inspected item (fare) and (ii) viewing / inspecting item, below the transparent cover, Fig. 5, element 24, for viewing /inspection /registration thereof, and permitting radial movement or tilting the inspection plate (plate 63) to drop (direct) the examined/inspected item to lower position to a holding plate/bin for holding the inspected item, see Fig. 5, plate 63, and respective col. 3, lines 105-115, and col. 4, lines 45-55.
PNG
media_image10.png
540
450
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
164
476
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
632
475
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the consumer operated kiosk of BOWLES ET AL. by using of the inspection plate for receiving the item (e-device) and viewing/inspecting the item, as taught by ROOKE, see Fig. 1, element 63, for dual functions of receiving and for viewing the received item. ROOKE also teaches the tilting the inspection plate to drop (direct) the examined/inspected item to lower position to a holding plate/bin as taught for holding the inspected item, see Fig. 5, plate 63, col. 4, lines 45-55. Rational G/TSM, combine. Alternatively, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
BOWLES ET AL./ROOKE fairly teaches the independent claim except for explicitly discloses: (2) the directing of the inspected item (device) to different storage bins/hoppers (2nd bin) by moving the deflecting plate to a different position, a 2nd position, for directing the inspected item to the 2nd storage bin/hopper for storage.
In a similar system for facilitating recycling, PHAM is cited to teach the directing of the moving of the inspected item (device) to different storage bins/hoppers by providing different pathways, i.e. a conveyor, a tube, or a pathway (deflecting plate) to a different positions for directing the inspected items to the different bins for storage of different components, see Fig. 1, storage portions 190 (bin 190a, bin 190b, and bin 190c), par. [035]. The creation of different pathways to the storage bins by (1) having two or more pathways or (2) changing the position of the pathways to different position so that the collected item/device can be directed to different paths to different storage bins are within the skilled of the artisan.
PNG
media_image13.png
456
450
media_image13.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image14.png
584
412
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the consumer operated kiosk of BOWLES ET AL. /ROOKE by causing the deflecting plate of BOWLES et al., plate 540, to move to different position is taught by PHAM to direct the device to different storage bins, as shown in par. [0035]. The creation of different pathways to the storage bins by (1) having two or more pathways or (2) changing the position of the pathways to different position so that the collected item/device can be directed to different paths to different storage bins are within the skilled of the artisan.
As for dep. claim 16 (part of 14 above) which deals with the operation of an access door “open/close” and “open” to return the device if the user rejects an offer for purchase of the device during a transaction at the kiosk, this is taught in BOWLES ET AL. Fig. 1, element 130 “access door” in a front and the decision condition on
[0074 …If not, the kiosk 100 proceeds to step 309 and opens the door and releases the electronic device back to the customer… ].
As for independent Claim 1, which is the combination of independent claim 14 and the control of the access door as shown in dep. claim 16, and further includes a 2nd deflection plate. As for the installing a 2nd deflection plate, this similar to the installing a second pathway of the 2nd storage bin above, which is the duplication of deflecting plate one above each other is for multiple effects (deflecting capacity) are well known and would have been obvious to a skilled artisan for double deflecting capacity/height/distance.
Note: Duplication of parts/functions/features for multiple effects are well known and has no patentable significance and would have been obvious to a skilled artisan, unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See In re Harza, 274 F. 2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
As for dep. claims 3-4 (part of 1 above) which deal with the use of a camera for inspecting the electronic device while it sits on the inspection plate, this is taught in BOWLES ET AL. Figs. 8, camera 610 and [0066 … If a single camera 610 is utilized in the inspection area 106, ..]. As shown in Fig. 8-9, the camera appears to be between 10-35 degree and is mounted to an interior wall and is aligned at a non-vertical angle.
PNG
media_image15.png
286
351
media_image15.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image16.png
558
500
media_image16.png
Greyscale
As for dep. claim 5 (part of 1 above) which deals with the feature of the inspection plate, partially transparent, this is taught in BOWLES et al. Fig. 3B, and [0060 … mobile phone is placed on the transparent plate 545 and ….] and [0066] for the position of the camera with respect to the inspection plate for viewing the camera.
As for dep. claim 6 (part of 1 above) which deals with the tilting angle of the inspection plate, these are taught in ROOKE Fig. 5, col. 3, lines 105-110 “the inspection plate in operative relation to the inclined bottom and to the transparent cover and permitting radial movement of the inspection plate” about an axis of rotation non-parallel to a front wall of the housing and in view of BOWLES et al. respective [0061] and Fig. 3C which shows the inspection plate is perpendicular to the wall of the housing.
PNG
media_image17.png
363
500
media_image17.png
Greyscale
As for dep. claim 7 (part of 1 above) which deal with the tilting angle of the inspection plate, these are taught in ROOKE Fig. 5, col. 3, lines 105-110 “the inspection plate in operative relation to the inclined bottom and to the transparent cover and permitting radial movement of the inspection plate” about an axis of rotation non-parallel to a front wall of the housing and in view of BOWLES et al. respective [0061] and Fig. 3C which shows the inspection plate is perpendicular to the wall of the housing.
As for dep. claims 8-9 (part of 1 above) which deal with the installing of a 3rd deflecting template and its position with respect to the 2nd deflection template, this is rejected for the same reason set forth in the installing of a 2nd storage bin as taught in PHAM above, Fig.1, storage 190a, 190b, and 190c.
As for dep. claim 10 (part of 1 above) which deals with the relationship of the deflection plate with the storage bins 1 and 2, this is taught in BOWLES ET AL. /ROOKE /PHAM as taught in PHAM par. [0035] and Fig. 1.
PNG
media_image13.png
456
450
media_image13.png
Greyscale
As for dep. claim 11 (part of 1 above) which deals with the limitation of the capacity volume of less than 0.75 cubic feet, on [0063], BOWLES ET AL. teaches that the size of the inspection area 106 is 30x30x20 in cm (L,W, and H) or 0.635 cubic feet. However, the volume capacity normally depends on the size of the electronic device and associated equipment, costs of the system, space availability, etc., it would have been obvious to design the kiosk less than 0.75 cubic feet if space availability is limited (or most important variable) while cost and other parameters are of no concern.
As for dep. claim 22 (part of 1 above) which and a housing has a volume less than 2 cubic feet, on [0063], BOWLES ET AL. teaches that the size of the inspection area 106 is 30x30x20 in cm (L,W, and H) or 0.635 cubic feet. However, the volume capacity normally depends on the size of the electronic device and associated equipment and its costs thereof, and it would have been obvious to design the kiosk less than 2 cubic feet if space is of major concern while cost is not important.
Dependent claim(s) 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BOWLES ET AL. / ROOKE /PHAM / as applied to claims 1-11 above, and further in view of (4) YAMADA ET AL. , US 7,431,158.
YAMADA ET AL. is cited to teach flexible substrate storage equipment and flexible substrate storing method by installing set of flexible fingers across the wall and protecting storing objects, see Fig. 1, Fig. 6, Fig. 7, col. 2, lines 45-60 below.
PNG
media_image18.png
246
500
media_image18.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image19.png
581
572
media_image19.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the consumer operated kiosk of BOWLES ET AL./ROOKE /PHAM / JOHNS by installing set of flexible fingers across the wall and protecting storing objects as taught by YAMADA ET AL. for protecting the storing object as shown in Fig. 1(d) and respective col. 2, lines 45-60. Rational G/TSM, combine. Alternatively, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As for dep. claim 13 (part of 1 above) which deal with the installing of a 2nd set of flexible fingers, which is the duplication of the 1st set of flexible fingers for multiple effects (flexible capacity) is well known and would have been obvious to a skilled artisan for double flexible capacity.
PNG
media_image20.png
444
525
media_image20.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BOWLES et al. /ROOKE /PHAM as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of (5) JOHNS, US 2009/0.145.727.
As for claim 15 and independent system claim 1, JOHNS is cited to teach the filling of multiple vessels (bins) and wherein the system cause the deflecting plate to move between a first position wherein the deflecting plate directs the loading object toward the first storage bin; and a second position wherein the deflecting plate directs the loading object toward the second storage bin, see Fig. 2B, Fig. 6 and 7.
PNG
media_image21.png
323
600
media_image21.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image22.png
652
550
media_image22.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the consumer operated kiosk of BOWLES ET AL./ROOKE /PHAM by detecting when the first storage bin is filled with filling components and causing the plate to move to a second position as taught by JOHNS to fill up with the second bin with the components, see Fig. 7 and [0044]. Rational G/TSM, combine. Alternatively, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments on 10/13/25 with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-13, 14-16 and 22 are noted and the responses are as followed:
(1) Applicant’s argument on pages 11-13, are noted but are moot due to new citations are used to address the dual functions of the inspection plate for receiving and serve as a holding for inspection by the camera.
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tan "Dean" D NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6806. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 6:30-4:30 PM (ET).
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, Sarah M Monfeldt can be reached on 571-270-1833. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TAN D NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689