DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a Final Office Action on the merits in response to communications received on 04/27/2026. Claims 1 and 14 have been amended. Therefore, claims 1-7 and 14-26 are pending and have been addressed below. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
1. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
2. Claims 1-7 and 14-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
With respect to claims 1 and 14:
The applicant’s disclosure fails to comply with the written description requirement, which demands that an applicant’s specification “describes the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the invention had possession of the claimed invention.” In cases involving computer-implemented functional claims, examiners are instructed to “determine whether the specification discloses the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed functions in sufficient detail….”
The MPEP explains that “the level of detail required to satisfy the written description requirement varies depending on the nature and scope of the claims and on the complexity and predictability of the relevant technology.” The support for amendments can be found in the Specification [¶ 0038, 0041]
Claims 1 and 14 recite: “preventing completion of the trade-in of the handheld wireless device until authorization is received from the external operator system”. The original specification filed 02/28/2023 does not mention a step for preventing completion of the trade-in and fails to describe or explain a step for how preventing completion of the trade-in is performed in sufficient detail. The written description requirement mandates the specification adequately describes the features of the claimed invention and applicant’s approach to how the claimed steps are performed. Since the original specification fails to clearly outline the features or steps, the support for the amendments to the claim encompasses new matter and is being rejected as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC §101
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-7 and 14-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
5. Regarding Step 1, claim 1 recites a process (i.e., an act or step, or a series of acts or steps) and claim 14 recites a machine (i.e., a concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices). Thus, each of the claims fall within one of the four statutory categories.
6. Regarding Step 2A [Prong 1], claims 1 and 14 recite:
“receiving…a first indication…that a user…wants to trade in;”, “receiving…interaction data from a user”, “determining…using the interaction data, when is operable, wherein …is determined to be operable when interaction data was received…;”, “in response to receiving the identification number, verifying…is available for trade-in by comparing the received identification number to an identification number stored in association with an identifier of the user…”, “inputting…the image data, wherein: on a set of training data to determine make, model, and physical condition;” and “the set of training data includes images, each image labeled with the make, the model, and a numerical value representative of the physical condition;”, “receiving…outputs, wherein the outputs represent the make, model, and physical condition, and wherein the physical condition is represented as a numerical value based on the presence of one or more cracks, scratches, or scuffs;” and “determining…the current condition based on the determination that is operable, the verification based on the identification number, and the outputs;”, “in response to the verification based on the identification number failing: …transmitting…a notification…indicating…may be compromised;” and “preventing completion of the trade-in…until authorization is received…;”, “in response to determining the current condition:…determining…a trade-in value…based on the current condition and the make and model output…;”
The limitations demonstrate that the claim recites an abstract idea of facilitating a trade-in or resale of a phone by evaluating the physical condition of the phone and generating a trade-in value for the phone which encompasses fundamental economic practices (i.e., insurance, mitigating risks), a commercial interaction (i.e., sales or marketing activities, business relations), managing personal behavior or interactions between people, (i.e., a user following rules or instructions), and mental processes, (i.e., observations, evaluations, judgements, opinions) which is subject matter that falls within the certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes groupings of abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.04 II
The Applicant’s Specification emphasizes in at least [¶ 0013] The disclosed systems and methods enable performance of a reliable, objective, and trustworthy determination of a current condition of an electronic device. For example, a dedicated mobile application on a smartphone can collect data indicative of the condition of the electronic device. This data can include images of the electronic device, which are input into a machine learned model that outputs a make, model, and physical condition of the electronic device. The mobile application can also verify an identity of a user of the electronic device and determine whether a touchscreen of the electronic device is operable. The mobile application uses the outputs, verified identity (or lack thereof), and touchscreen operability to determine a current condition of the electronic device. The current condition indicates the ability of the electronic device to be traded in and given to a new user. The mobile application uses the current condition to assign a trade-in or resale value to the electronic device thereby obviating the need for an unreliable and untrustworthy subjective assessment.
Consistent with the specification, the limitations describe tasks and interactions a user may perform to request a trade-in, verify the condition of the trade-in, authorize the trade-in, return a trade-in value which relates to concepts that involve fundamental economic practices, [i.e., mitigating risk], and commercial interactions, [i.e., marketing or sales activities, business relations] and managing personal behavior or interactions between people, [i.e., steps a user or operator may follow]. Also, the limitations describe performing mental processes for determining the current condition and generating a trade-in value by collecting and observing physical characteristics of the trade-in against one or more conditions to generate and return a trade-in value, which are observations and/or acts that may be performed in the human mind or by a person with or without pen and paper. As such, the claim recites an abstract idea.
7. Regarding Step 2A [Prong 2], independent claims include the following additional elements which do not amount to a practical application:
“a system”, “a processor;”, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions:”, “at a manager node via a network”, “from a handheld wireless device”, “causing display…via a touch screen of the handheld wireless device of a plurality of touch screen widgets, wherein each touch screen verification widget of the plurality of touch screen verification widgets is associated with a portion of the touch screen”, “at the manager node”, “by the manager node” “from the handheld device”, “one or more touch screen verification widgets of the plurality of touch screen verification widgets, wherein the verification widgets include indications of a predetermined sequence of touch locations”, “for each touch screen verification widget of the plurality of touch screen verification widgets according to the predetermined sequence of touch location”, “via the touch screen”, “a machine learned model”, “by the machine learned model”, “the machine learned model is trained”, “from the machine learned model”, “an electronic ledger associated with the handheld wireless device, wherein the electronic ledger”, “automatically”, “an external operator system”– see claims 1 and 14, are all described at a high-level of generality in light of the Specification. The Specification [i.e., Fig. 4, ¶ 0017] describes the additional elements in general terms without describing any of the particulars or technical details such that they may be broadly but reasonably construed as generic computer components that are being used to aid in performance of the abstract idea. As such, these additional elements recited in the claim are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05 (f)
The other additional elements of: “prompting…input of an identification number;”, “prompting…upload of image data;”, “transmitting the trade-in value to the handheld wireless device for display via the touch screen”, “storing…the current condition…tracks the current condition over time” add insignificant extra-solution activity [ i.e., data gathering, storage, output] to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g)
The additional element of “a method for determining a current condition of a handheld wireless device configured to communicate data over a wireless telecommunications network, the method comprising:” is merely an attempt to limit the claimed invention to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(h)
Thus, the additional claim elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application, because the claims do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (Vanda Memo), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
8. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of: “a system”, “a processor;”, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions:”, “at a manager node via a network”, “from a handheld wireless device”, “causing display…via a touch screen of the handheld wireless device of a plurality of touch screen widgets, wherein each touch screen verification widget of the plurality of touch screen verification widgets is associated with a portion of the touch screen”, “at the manager node”, “by the manager node” “from the handheld device”, “one or more touch screen verification widgets of the plurality of touch screen verification widgets, wherein the verification widgets include indications of a predetermined sequence of touch locations”, “for each touch screen verification widget of the plurality of touch screen verification widgets according to the predetermined sequence of touch location”, “via the touch screen”, “a machine learned model”, “by the machine learned model”, “the machine learned model is trained”, “from the machine learned model”, “an electronic ledger associated with the handheld wireless device, wherein the electronic ledger”, “automatically”, “an external operator system”– see claims 1 and 14 are at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception does not provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
The additional elements of: “prompting…input of an identification number;”, “prompting…upload of image data;”, “transmitting the trade-in value to the handheld wireless device for display via the touch screen”, “storing…the current condition…tracks the current condition over time” were considered insignificant extra-solution activity under Step 2A Prong Two and have been re-evaluated under Step 2B to determine if the limitations are well-known, routine, and/or conventional. As discussed in MPEP 2106.05 (d)(II), the Alice, Symantec, TLI Communications, OIP Techs court decisions indicated “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, “electronic recordkeeping”, and “presenting offers and gathering statistics” are computer functions that are well-known, routine, and conventional. Therefore, when viewed individually or in combination with the judicial exception the limitations do not provide an inventive concept.
9. Dependent claims 2-7 and 15-26 recite: claims 2, 15, 25, recite “further comprising: in response to determining the numerical value is greater than a damage threshold, determining that the handheld wireless device is not transferable to a second user.” which serve to narrow how the abstract idea may be performed but does not make the claim any less abstract, claims 3 and 16 recite “further comprising: adding, to an electronic ledger associated with the handheld wireless device, the current condition at a current time and date” which adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, i.e., data storage, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g). The electronic ledger is nominally recited in the claim to store or retrieve data which does not integrate the judicial exception, claims 4 and 17 recite “wherein the image data is one or more of images and/or videos” which further describes the data/information recited in the abstract idea but does not make the claim any less abstract, claims 5 and 18 recite “wherein the identification number is an International Mobile Equipment Identity (IMEI)” which further describes the data/information recited in the abstract idea but does not make the claim any less abstract, claims 6 and 19 recite “further comprising: in response to not verifying the identity of the user, establishing communication with an electronic device of an external operator.” which serve to narrow how the abstract idea may be performed but does not make the claim any less abstract, claims 7 and 20 recite “transmitting, for display via the touch screen, a notification of the current condition of the handheld wireless device” which adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, i.e., data transmission, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g). The touch screen is nominally recited in the claim and mere used to provide information which does not integrate the judicial exception or provide an inventive concept, claims 21 and 24 recite “wherein the outputs from the machine learned model include a numerical value representative of the physical condition of the handheld wireless device” serves to further describe the data or information recited in the abstract idea. The machine learning model is being used in its ordinary capacity to output results which does not integrate the judicial exception or provide an inventive concept, claim 22 recites “determining that the numerical value is below a damage threshold and determining that the handheld wireless device is transferable to a second user” serves to narrow how the abstract idea may be performed, but does not make the claim any less abstract, claims 23 and 26 recite “determining a trade-in value of the handheld wireless device and transmitting the trade-in value to the handheld wireless device for display on the touch screen of the handheld wireless device” serves to narrow how the abstract idea may be performed, but does not make the claim any less abstract. Accordingly, the dependent claims fail to impose any meaningful limits on integrating the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, after considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination and in ordered combination, it has been determined that the claims are not enough to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention since the claim limitations do not amount to a practical application or significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. 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.
11. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
12. Claim(s) 1-7 and 14-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zellner (US 2023/0188998 A1) in view of Silva (US 2020/0265487 A1) in further view of Dion (US 2021/0110440 A1)
With respect to claims 1 and 14, Zellner discloses
a method and system for determining a current condition of a handheld wireless device configured to communicate data over a wireless telecommunications network (abstract, ¶ 0001, 0079, 0089, 0114: discloses systems, methods, and apparatuses related to remote verification of a condition of a mobile device.) comprising:
a processor (¶ 0102: discloses processor); and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions (¶ 0101: discloses computer readable medium) that when executed cause the processor to perform actions comprising:
receiving, at a manager node via a network, a first indication from the handheld wireless device that a user of the handheld wireless device seeks to trade-in the handheld wireless device (¶ 0079, 0120: discloses receiving a request for verification on mobile device condition of a mobile device from a user of the mobile device. The request may be a device-to-device transmission generated at one device and sent via a network or wireless connection to another device. The request may be a transmission within a single device. For example, the user or a third party may initiate a “trade in” or similar function that may require verification of the condition of the mobile device. The request may be sent to the remote verification circuitry 102 within the apparatus or it may be sent to the remote verification system 307 which represents the manager node.);
causing display, by the manager node at the handheld wireless device via a touch screen of the handheld wireless device, of a plurality of touch screen verification widgets (Fig. 12, ¶ 0158, 0162: discloses a touch screen diagnostic, i.e., a digitizer test, may comprise a GUI 2700 configured to explain the process to the user and request one or more inputs by the user in order to begin the touchscreen diagnostic.),
wherein each touch screen verification widget of the plurality of touch screen verification widgets is associated with a portion of the touch screen (Fig. 12, ¶ 0158, 0162-0163: discloses the touchscreen diagnostic may comprise an indication for the user to tap, select, or swipe one or more grid squares in order to determine that the touchscreen of the mobile device is working in each respective grid square.);
receiving, at the manager node, interaction data from the handheld wireless device, the interaction data indicating touch interaction of a user with one or more touch screen verification widgets of the plurality of touch screen verification widgets (Fig. 12, ¶ 0158, 0162-0163: discloses in response to selection of individual grid squares 2801, portions of an image may be displayed to visually indicate to the user that the respective grid square is functional and has been verified.),
wherein the verification widgets include indications of a predetermined sequence of touch locations (¶ 0158, 0162-0163: discloses one or more grid squares for selection of the user using the touchscreen of the mobile device. The size/number of grid squares may be selected, i.e., preset, by the carrier or provider that is directing or otherwise associated with the remote verification process. The touch screen test includes instructing the user to follow a test pattern on the screen with their finger or instructing the user to color in the screen with their finger to verify the entirety of the touch surface of the screen is operational.);
determining, by the manager node, using the interaction data, when the touch screen is operable (Fig. 12, ¶ 0158, 0162-0163),
wherein the touch screen is determined to be operable when interaction data was received for each touch screen verification widget of the plurality of touch screen verification widgets according to the predetermined sequence of touch locations (Fig. 12, ¶ 0158, 0162-0163: discloses once the user has selected each of the grid squares and each has been verified, the GUI may return an indication that the touchscreen diagnostic has been passed. The touch screen test includes instructing the user to follow a test pattern on the screen with their finger or instructing the user to color in the screen with their finger to verify the entirety of the touch surface of the screen is operational.);
prompting, via the touch screen, input of an identification number of the handheld wireless device (¶ 0110, 0144-0145: discloses the GUI may be configured to request the user to input background data associated with the mobile device, such as an IMEI number);
in response to receiving the identification number at the manager node, verifying, by the manager node, that the handheld wireless device is available for trade-in by comparing the received identification number to an identification number stored in association with an identifier of the user of the handheld device (¶ 0110-0111, 0127, 0138, 0144-0145: discloses the remote verification system 307 may use the identification data object, i.e., IMEI number associated with the mobile device to identify and match the current mobile device and/or current remote verification process using the correct identification data object with stored historical and current data of the mobile device within the verification system. The identification data object may be associated with both the device and the user.);
prompting, via the touch screen, upload of image data depicting the handheld wireless device (¶ 0018, 0153-0155: discloses directing a user of a mobile device to orient a front-facing camera and capturing an image of the mobile device.);
inputting, by the manager node, the image data to a machine learned model (¶ 0155: discloses a neural network or machine learning model is used to determine if the image contains damage.), wherein: the machine learned model is trained on a set of training data to determine physical condition of handheld wireless devices (¶ 0155-0156: discloses a neural network or machine learning model may be trained to determine if one or more parts of the image(s) show damage.); and
the set of training data includes images of handheld wireless devices (¶ 0154-0156: discloses one or more images may be captured for analysis.), and a numerical value representative of the physical condition of the respective handheld wireless device (¶ 0156: discloses the neural networks and/or machine learning models determine patterns amongst the plurality of parameters, values, and data points defined by the screen crack detection data and screen crack predictions.);
receiving, by the manager node, outputs from the machine learned model (¶ 0155-0157: discloses the images of the mobile device may be transmitted to remote verification system for image analysis.), wherein the outputs represent the physical condition of the handheld wireless device (¶ 0155-0157: discloses the machine learning model determines whether one or more parts of the image(s) show damage); and
determining, by the manager node, the current condition of the handheld wireless device (Fig. 16, ¶ 0196: discloses indicating the acceptable condition 1600) based on the determination that the touch screen of the handheld wireless device is operable (Fig. 16, ¶ 0196: discloses results of the screen crack detection routine, i.e., touchscreen), the verification based on the identification number (¶ 0138, 0193), and the outputs of the machine learned model (¶ 0155-0156: discloses the neural networks and/or machine learning models may be configured to determine a correlation or pattern associated with the image data of a mobile device.)
in response to the verification based on the identification number failing (¶ 0110-0111, 0138: discloses the remote verification system 307 may match the identification data object input by the user. If the identification data object input does not match then the remote verification of the condition of the mobile device process may halt.):
automatically transmitting, by the manager node, a notification to an external operator system indicating that the handheld wireless device may be compromised (¶ 0110-0111, 0138, 0155: discloses the remote verification system may provide the results to a third-party computing system for determination of eligibility and/or next steps.); and
preventing completion of the trade-in of the handheld wireless device until authorization is received from the external operator system (¶ 0138: discloses the third party computing system, i.e., retailers of the mobile device, may determine eligibility of the mobile device for the processes based on the IMEI number of the mobile device. Eligibility may be verified manually);
in response to determining the current condition (Fig. 16, ¶ 0080, 0148, 0196: discloses indicating the acceptable condition 1600):
automatically determining, by the manager node, a trade-in value for the handheld wireless device (¶ 0148: discloses the remote verification system may determine a trade-in value for the mobile device) based on the current condition (¶ 0148: discloses the remote verification system processes the specific age of the mobile device and one or more diagnostic indicators to generate the value of the mobile device.) output by the machine learned model (¶ 0155-0157); and
transmitting the trade-in value to the handheld wireless device for display via the touch screen (Figs. 16¶ 0125-0126, 0148, 0196: discloses once the value for the mobile device has been generated by the remote verification system, the remote verification may transmit the value back to the mobile device 310 via the network. The value may be used to configure the GUI of the mobile device to show the user the value of the mobile device ;
storing, by the manager node, the current condition to an electronic ledger associated with the handheld wireless device (¶ 0106, 0116, 0127, 0141: discloses the remote verification system 307 may store and otherwise use and keep track of datasets received from mobile devices, diagnostic indicators, screen crack detection results, etc. The memories 103 and 203 may be any suitable networked storage devices configured to store some or all of the information. The memories may include one or more database systems, backend data servers, network databases, cloud storage devices, etc. The remote verification of the condition of the mobile device process may store externally via transmission of data over a network to an external storage subsystem analytics of the mobile device based on one or more historical and current diagnostics.),
wherein the electronic ledger tracks the current condition over time. (¶ 0106, 0116, 0127: discloses the remote verification of the condition of the mobile device process may store externally via transmission of data over a network to an external storage subsystem historical and current data of the mobile device based on diagnostics run.)
The Zellner reference does not explicitly disclose the following limitations. In the same field of endeavor, the Silva reference is related to evaluating the condition of mobile phones based on machine learning techniques. (¶ 0002)
the machine learned model is trained on a set of training data to determine make, model (Fig. 5, ¶ 0066-0069: discloses training a neural network for evaluating the cosmetic condition of electronic devices. The training set can include information about the devices, i.e., brand, model, release date, so that the model can be trained to identify damages that are specific to a particular set of devices. The method includes training at least a portion of the neural network based on the training set.),
each image labeled with the make of a respective handheld wireless device, the model of the respective handheld wireless device (¶ 0062, 0068: discloses the neural networks can be trained using pre-collected images which have been labeled by inspectors.),
wherein the outputs represent the make and model of the handheld wireless device (¶ 0059: discloses the output of the neural networks includes an integer 0 or 1. Zero can represent “cosmetically good” and 1 can represent “cosmetically bad. The output of the neural networks can be a score of a range of values that indicate the severity of the damages on the consumer device. The output of the neural networks can further include a brand, model, and/or type of electronic device shown in the input image.)
As can be seen from the cited passages above and [¶ 0003-0007] of Silva, using machine learning techniques, i.e., neural networks, to evaluate images and output the brand, model, and condition of electronic devices were known in the state of the art as there was a need for more efficient technologies for evaluating the physical and/or cosmetic condition of electronic devices in the industry.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system and methods of Zellner for verifying the condition of mobile device, in include the techniques for evaluating the cosmetic and/or physical condition of electronic devices using a neural network model, as disclosed by Silva to achieve the claimed invention. As disclosed by Silva, the motivation for the combination would have been to leverage brand and model information from the image so that the model can be trained to identify damages that are specific to a particular set of devices as expressly suggested by Silva (¶ 0003-0007, 0068)
The combination of Zellner and Silva does not explicitly disclose the following limitations. In the same field of endeavor, the Dion reference is related to systems and methods related to the evaluation of pre-owned electronic devices. (¶ 0002)
wherein the physical condition is represented as a numerical value based on the presence of one or more of cracks, scratches, or scuffs
(¶ 0327, 0331, 0355-0357, 0370-0373: discloses the evaluation 814 results in information 802 associated with the POD and the evaluation of the POD. The information 802 may include POD identification information 801, attributes 804 and conditions 810. Some attributes 804, may include lists of attributes 806. For example, a defect attribute for a scratch may include a list of two scratches. For each attribute in the list, meta-attributes 808 may be specified. For example, for each scratch attribute in a list of scratches, meta-attributes can be specified for location of scratch, dimension of scratch, image of scratch (digital assets), and timestamp of when scratch was observed. Use of a percentage-based grading method, applying weighting factors to attributes, meta-attributes or conditions. The grading functions could return a weighted notation giving 50% to the inner-working conditions of the pre-owned device, 30% to the touch-screen conditions and 20% for the body condition. Provide an evaluation score (e.g. “your score” in the customer report shown in FIG. 9F) that is computed using programmatic or machine-learning algorithms that provide a numerical, alphanumerical or grading score for a device which may be presented to the end user. Such an evaluation score can, for example, be calculated using any one or more of: deterioration information; weighted physical defect information, for example, a small nick may have weight less than a crack; and/or weighted health information or defect, for example a malfunctioning, lesser used feature, such as the accelerometer, may have weight less than a malfunctioning network interface. The weights may be configured according to rules in a rules database or in context information. The evaluation score may be complemented by evaluation summary information, such as graded information about physical and internal condition. For example, a device could have a score of 80 and a summary information stating “Good physical condition” and “Good working condition”. Combined they can become an evaluation summary. The evaluation score, information or summary may become useful for “summarizing” an evaluation report or customer report about a device, much like a credit score provides a summary information about a person's credit habits. Such evaluation score, information or summary, may provide, for example the ability for a protection company (insurance, warranty provider, manufacturer, reseller) to offer protection plans that will replace a device deemed “as good or better”, and such entity could rely either on detailed evaluation information with detailed defect information, or in a preferred embodiment, on evaluation score, information or summary in order to broaden the quantity of substitute devices available.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combined system and methods of Zellner and Silva for verifying the condition of mobile devices, to include wherein the physical condition is represented as a numerical value based on the presence of one or more of cracks, scratches, or scuffs, as disclosed by Dion to achieve the claimed invention. As disclosed by Dion, the motivation for the combination would have been to provide advantages for buyers including more accurate grading of pre-owned devices so that buyers can make a clear agreement when trading in graded devices. (¶ 0355-0356)
With respect to claims 2, 15, and 25, the combination of Zellner, Silva, and Dion discloses the method and system, further comprising:
in response to determining the numerical value is greater than a damage threshold (¶ 0084: Zellner discloses the processor analyzes one or more images and returns an indication of an unacceptable condition.),
determining that the handheld wireless device is not transferable to a second user. (¶ 0096: Zellner discloses an unacceptable condition may trigger a failsafe to prevent the device from being sold, shipped to, used, or accepted by third parties.)
With respect to claims 3 and 16, the combination of Zellner, Silva, and Dion discloses the method and system, further comprising:
adding, to an electronic ledger associated with the handheld wireless device,
the current condition at a current time and date. (¶ 0106, 0116, 0127: Zellner discloses memories 103 include one or more database systems, network databases, cloud storage devices, etc. The remote verification system 307 may store the historical data associated with the mobile device comprising one or more previous diagnostics run on the mobile device and/or current diagnostics run on the mobile device during the current process of the remote verification of the condition of the mobile device process)
With respect to claims 4 and 17, the combination of Zellner, Silva, and Dion discloses the method and system,
wherein the image data is one or more of images and/or videos. (¶ 0154-0156: Zellner discloses images of the mobile device are used for image analysis.)
With respect to claims 5 and 18, the combination of Zellner, Silva, and Dion discloses the method and system,
wherein the identification number is an International Mobile Equipment Identity (IMEI). (¶ 0110, 0127, 0138, 0144: Zellner discloses the GUI may be configured to request the user to input background data associated with mobile device such as an IMEI number.)
With respect to claims 6 and 19, the combination of Zellner, Silva, and Dion discloses the method and system, further comprising:
in response to not verifying the identity of the user (¶ 0111: Zellner discloses stored identification data object data may be stored within a policy linked to at least one of the user and mobile device which may be used for offering one or more services associated with the verification.),
establishing communication with an electronic device of an external operator. (¶ 0111: Zellner discloses information related to the mobile device to be sent to one or more third party computing devices in which verification of a condition of the mobile device is requested.)
With respect to claims 7 and 20, the combination of Zellner, Silva, and Dion discloses the method and system, further comprising:
transmitting, for display via the touch screen, a notification of the current condition of the handheld wireless device. (¶ 0116, 0148, 0194-0196: Zellner discloses GUI of the mobile device may be configured to show an acceptable condition of the mobile device based on the remote verification of the condition of the mobile device.)
With respect to claims 21 and 24, the combination of Zellner, Silva, and Dion discloses the method and system,
wherein the outputs from the machine learned model include a numerical value representative of the physical condition of the handheld wireless device. (¶ 0059: Silva discloses the output of the neural networks includes an integer 0 or 1. Zero can represent “cosmetically good” and 1 can represent “cosmetically bad. The output of the neural networks can be a score of a range of values that indicate the severity of the damages on the consumer device. The output of the neural networks can further include a brand, model, and/or type of electronic device shown in the input image.)
With respect to claim 22, the combination of Zellner, Silva, and Dion discloses the method of claim 21, further comprising:
determining that the numerical value is below a damage threshold (¶ 00042, 0059: Silva discloses the output of the neural networks can be a score of a range of values that indicate the severity of the damages on the consumer device.) and
determining that the handheld wireless device is transferable to a second user. (¶ 0042, 0050 - Silva)
With respect to claims 23 and 26, the combination of Zellner, Silva, and Dion discloses the method and system, further comprising:
determining a trade-in value of the handheld wireless device (¶ 0195-0198 - Zellner); and transmitting the trade-in value to the handheld wireless device for display on the touch screen of the handheld wireless device. (Fig. 16, ¶ 0195-0198: Zellner discloses an example GUI 4100 configured to give a user a trade-in amount. The trade-in amount may comprise the value associated with the mobile device after the acceptable condition is determined)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With Respect to Rejections Under 35 USC 101
Applicant argues “In Prong One of Step 2A, "examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception." MPEP 2106.04(Il)(A)(l). To determine whether a claim recites an abstract idea in Prong One, examiners should: "(a) identif[y] the specific limitation(s) in the claim under examination that the examiner believes recites an abstract idea; and (b) determin[e] whether the identified limitation(s) falls within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas." MPEP 2106.04(a). The subject matter groupings enumerated in the MPEP are "mathematical concepts," "certain methods of organizing human activity," and "mental processes." MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)()-(III).”
“Applicant respectfully submits that claim 1 as amended herein cannot reasonably be classified as merely reciting an abstract idea. For example, claim 1 describes a specific technical approach for evaluating a trade-in device and provides for an automated, gated process.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The claims remain ineligible under Step 2A Prong One of the two-part analysis. Simply because the method steps may be automated or add technical features to the claim does not preclude the identified claim limitations from being in the certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes groupings. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) indicates the sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping.
The Applicant’s Specification discusses [¶ 0001-0003] conventional business practices related to how interactions between a customer and technician typically flow when physically assessing a mobile phone for trade-in and a need for a more accurate assessment of a mobile phone’s condition. Thus, the findings from the disclosure emphasize the focus of the claims are for facilitating a trade-in for a user and techniques for assessing the condition of the trade-in which encompasses concepts related to mitigating risks for the user and commercial interactions, i.e., sales/marketing activities, business relations, that may be reasonably characterized as falling withing the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “In Prong Two of Step 2A, the examiner evaluates "whether the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application." MPEP 2106.04(d)(III). A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application "will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception." MPEP 2106.04(d).
Applicant submits that claim 1 as amended integrates the alleged abstract idea into a practical application and is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize an abstract idea. Specifically, claim 1 as amended herein recites a particular approach for determining trade-in eligibility and value, providing a significant technical improvement. Claim 1 as amended does not merely recite the automation of manual steps, but rather involves automatically taking action to gate the trade-in process in response to the detection of a possible issue. For example, claim 1 as amended recites "automatically transmitting, by the manager node, a notification to an external operator system indicating that the handheld wireless device may be compromised; and preventing completion of the trade-in of the handheld wireless device until authorization is received from the external operator system." The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. In regards to preemption remarks, the courts have previously held while preemption concerns are "the basis for the judicial exceptions to patentability . . ., the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility." Ariosa, 788 F.3d at 1379; see also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("A narrow claim directed to an abstract idea, however, is not necessarily patent-eligible . . . .").
At best, the Applicant’s remarks indicate a particular approach but mainly rely upon steps recited within the abstract idea. Thus, merely restating the presently recited techniques does not alter the analysis or automatically indicate the claim limitations have been integrated into a practical application. These newly added steps discussed from the claim under their broadest reasonable interpretation involve tasks the system may perform with an external operator. See Applicant’s Spec [¶ 0038, 0041] The steps describe notifying a user operating an external computing device about the condition of the phone and allowing the user of the external computing device to observe and input information regarding the current condition/value of the phone which are concepts that cover commercial interactions and managing personal behavior/interactions between people.
Under BRI, The “transmitting” and “preventing” steps perform data gathering or transmission tasks necessary to carry-out the abstract idea. The Specification [¶ 0041] and remarks explain the processes being performed by the steps in a general manner and are devoid any technological implementation details or improvements to computing technology. As such, when viewing the limitations individually and in combination, the newly added limitations further narrow how the abstract idea is to be performed rather than indicate integration of the judicial exception into a practical application. For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant argues “For completeness, Applicant respectfully submits that the claims are also eligible under Step 2B, since they amount to "significantly more" than the abstract idea alleged in the Office Action. In Step 2B, examiners determine whether the claim recites additional elements that, individually or in combination, amount to "significantly more" than the purported judicial exception. A claim amounts to "significantly more" when an additional element or combination of elements "is unconventional or otherwise more than what is well understood, routine, conventional activity in the field." MPEP 2106.05(11). Applicant respectfully submits that claim 1 as amended is also patent eligible under Step 2B of the revised subject matter eligibility test because it recites elements that are not part of the alleged abstract idea and were not "well understood, routine, conventional activity in the field" at the time the application was filed, as evidenced by the gaps in the prior art of record, as discussed in more detailed below with respect to the Section 103 rejections.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. In regards to remarks directed towards Step 2B, it has been clear since Alice that a claimed invention's use of the ineligible concept to which it is directed cannot supply the inventive concept that renders the invention "significantly more" than that ineligible concept. In the instant case, the only alleged unconventional features of Applicant’s claims from the remarks include "automatically transmitting, by the manager node, a notification to an external operator system indicating that the handheld wireless device may be compromised;” and “preventing completion of the trade-in of the handheld wireless device until authorization is received from the external operator system." The Examiner asserts these features simply restate limitations of the abstract idea and the conclusory allegations that the prior art lacked elements of the asserted claims is insufficient to demonstrate an inventive concept. For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “For at least the foregoing reasons, independent claim 1 complies with Section 101. Claim 14, as amended herein, recites similar limitations and also complies with Section 101 for at least the reasons indicated above with respect to claim 1. The dependent claims also comply with Section 101 for at least the reasons indicated above with respect to claim 1. Thus, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant's arguments with respect to claim 14 and dependent claims fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims integrates the judicial exception into a practical application or provides an inventive concept. For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
With Respect to Rejections Under 35 USC 103
Applicant argues “With respect to preventing trade-in completion pending external operator system authorization, claim 1 describes a gated authorization workflow in which a trade-in is suspended pending another action. In contrast, Zellner and Dion either reject the transaction outright or provide guidance to the user. Silva provides a kiosk-based system in which a transaction either succeeds (e.g., customer accepts the trade in value offered) or fails (e.g., customer rejects the offer or transaction was declined).” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the cited references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a gated authorization workflow in which a trade-in is suspended pending another action) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant further argues “With respect to value determination, the cited references operate in significantly different manners from that recited in claim 1. Zellner, for example, uses pass/fail diagnostics and IMEI-based identification, rather than ML-derived make, model, and condition. Silva uses binary condition labels, and Dion provides percentage-based grading using programmatic weighting formulas, but not ML model outputs. Claim 1 describes a specific approach for identifying the device, quantifying the condition of the device, and determining the trade-in value, that is not taught or suggested by Zellner, Silva, and Dion.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Applicant further argues “As a result, the Section 103 rejection of claim 1 should be withdrawn for at least the foregoing reasons and for the additional features of these claims. Claim 14 has been similarly amended and should be allowed for at least the same reasons.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. Applicant's arguments with respect to claim 14 fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EHRIN PRATT whose telephone number is (571)270-3184. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5 EST Monday-Friday.
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, Lynda Jasmin can be reached at 571-272-6782. 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.
/EHRIN L PRATT/Examiner, Art Unit 3629
/LYNDA JASMIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights