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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/17/25 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 4, 11, and 18 continue to be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 4, 11, and 18 include the specific element of “network interface”. For the purpose of compact examination, the examiner interprets “network interface” as the interface of electronic device. This element appears to have no support in the original abstract, specification or drawings. Introduction of new matter is not allowed in amendments to the Claims (MPEP 2163.06).
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-20 are directed to a method or product, which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The examiner has identified independent method claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent product claims 8 and 15. Claim 1 recites the limitations of a method of looking up the value of a product/device and going to a kiosk for second valuation.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. Acquiring information on a portable device; (information based on diagnostic OR performance info obtained by diagnostic operation); analyzing the acquired information; determining the value of the device based the information acquired; displaying the value on the device screen; receiving the device in kiosk; analyzing the device in the kiosk; analysis including controlling a kiosk camera to capture image of the device; and displaying the value of the device on the kiosk screen, – specifically, the claim recites “acquiring… information regarding the portable electronic device; analyzing the acquired information; determining an estimated payable amount for the portable electronic device based on the analyzing; displaying… the estimated payable amount for the portable electronic device; receiving the portable electronic device in a kiosk; further analyzing the portable electronic device in the kiosk; and displaying… a finalized payable amount determined based upon said analyzing the portable electronic device in the kiosk and the estimated payable amount,” recites a fundamental economic practice.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic practice or commercial or legal interactions, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The “an app”, “a portable electronic device”, “a screen of the portable electronic device”, “a kiosk”, “hardware components of a portable electronic device”, and “a screen of the kiosk”, in claim 1;
the additional technical element of “a non-transitory computer readable medium”, “a first processor of a portable electronic device”, “a network”, “a remote device”, “camera”, and “a second processor of a kiosk”, in claim 8; and the additional technical element of “a processor of a portable electronic device” in claim 15, are just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The recitation of generic computer components in a claim does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. Claims 8 and 15 are also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of: a computer such as a portable electronic device, a first processor of a portable electronic device, a second processor of a kiosk, a processor of a portable electronic device (which the examiner interprets to be the same as “a first processor of a portable electronic device”, because the specification does not mention a second processor of the portable electronic device), hardware components of a portable electronic device (these are components being examined for pricing purpose; e.g., if the item to be sold is a cell phone, the components could be the screen, the SIM card, microphone, etc.), a remote device, and a kiosk; a communication device such as a screen of the portable electronic device, a network, and a screen of the kiosk; software module and algorithm such as an app; and a storage unit such as a non-transitory computer readable medium.
The computer hardware/software is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, claims 1, 8, and 15 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Thus, claims 1, 8, and 15 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 1, 8, and 15 and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above.
Dependent claim 2 discloses the limitation of instructing the client to perform one or more actions with the portable electronic device; and obtaining diagnostics related to at least one of a touch screen, GPS receiver, accelerometer and gyroscope, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 3 discloses the limitation of instructing the client to perform one or more actions with the portable electronic device; and obtaining diagnostics related to at least one of a touch screen, GPS receiver, accelerometer and gyroscope, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical elements “a touch screen”, “GPS receiver”, “accelerometer”, and “gyroscope” are recited at a high level of generality. They do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 4 discloses the limitation of analyzing system logs of the portable electronic device; and obtaining diagnostics related at least to a network interface from the system logs, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical element “network interface” (in addition to being an unsupported new matter, see Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a) above) is recited at a high level of generality. It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 5 discloses the limitation of acquiring one or more images of the portable electronic device; and acquiring one or more recordings of audio output of the portable electronic device, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 6 discloses the limitation of automatically detecting that the portable electronic device is near the kiosk; and responsive to the detecting, transferring diagnostic information from the portable electronic device to the kiosk, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 7 discloses the limitation of comparing the acquired information to a database of performance metrics for a plurality of devices; and based on the comparing determine whether the portable electronic device is a counterfeit, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 9 discloses the limitation of the acquired information includes information regarding a client owner of the portable electronic device and diagnostic information regarding the portable electronic device, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 10 discloses the limitation of instructing the client to perform one or more actions with the portable electronic device; and obtaining diagnostics related to at least one of a touch screen, GPS receiver, accelerometer and gyroscope, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical elements “a touch screen”, “GPS receiver”, “accelerometer”, and “gyroscope” are recited at a high level of generality. They do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 11 discloses the limitation of analyzing system logs of the portable electronic device; and obtaining diagnostics related at least to a network interface from the system logs, which further narrows the abstract idea. Again, note that the technical element “network interface” (in addition to being an unsupported new matter, see Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a) above) is recited at a high level of generality. It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 12 discloses the limitation of acquiring one or more images of the portable electronic device; and acquiring one or more recordings of audio output of the portable electronic device, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 13 discloses the limitation of automatically detecting that the portable electronic device is near the kiosk; and responsive to the detecting, transferring diagnostic information from the portable electronic device to the kiosk, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 14 discloses the limitation of comparing the acquired information to a database of performance metrics for a plurality of devices; and based on the comparing determine whether the portable electronic device is a counterfeit, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 16 discloses the limitation of the acquired information includes information regarding a client owner of the portable electronic device and diagnostic information regarding the portable electronic device, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 17 discloses the limitation of instructing the client to perform one or more actions with the portable electronic device; and obtaining diagnostics related to at least one of a touch screen, GPS receiver, accelerometer and gyroscope, which further narrows the abstract idea. Again, note that the technical elements “a touch screen”, “GPS receiver”, “accelerometer”, and “gyroscope” are recited at a high level of generality. They do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 18 discloses the limitation of analyzing system logs of the portable electronic device; and obtaining diagnostics related at least to a network interface from the system logs, which further narrows the abstract idea. Again, note that the technical element “network interface” (in addition to being an unsupported new matter, see Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a) above) is recited at a high level of generality. It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 19 discloses the limitation of acquiring one or more images of the portable electronic device; and acquiring one or more recordings of audio output of the portable electronic device, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 20 discloses the limitation of automatically detecting that the portable electronic device is near the kiosk; and responsive to the detecting, transferring diagnostic information from the portable electronic device to the kiosk, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Thus, the dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1-20 are not patent-eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10, 12-15, 17and 19-20 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cirannek (20160092849) in view of Tkachenko (WO 2015076949).
Regarding claim 1, Cirannek discloses
a method comprising: acquiring, based at least on diagnostic operations performed on hardware components of a portable electronic device by an app executed on the portable electronic device, information regarding the portable electronic device
(The examiner notes that, in the latest amendment, the applicant makes clear that the information (used in pricing the device) is from “diagnostic operation”. The term “diagnostic operation”, however, is not defined by the specification. Instead, the specification uses – interchangeably – the terms “diagnostic test”, “diagnostic activities”, “diagnostic actions”, etc. Functionally, these diagnostic actions can include analysis base on image captured (see paragraph 255 “diagnostics of the trade device may be performed based at least on an image captured using the camera of the other device”), and on the brand/model (see paragraph 228 “diagnostic functions capable of identifying through… manufacturer models”)”.
As such the relevant prior art teaching can be found in [0016]… methods for determining prices for mobile phones and other consumer electronic devices, and for performing other operations associated with electronic device recycling… consumer-operated kiosks that can perform automatic visual and/or electrical inspections of mobile phones and/or other consumer electronic devices that are submitted to the kiosks for sale or recycling… the visual evaluation or inspection can be performed using one or more cameras or other imaging devices). and
([0017] For example, some sub-models of mobile phones and other types of electronic devices include the same product identification number (PID) and vendor identification number (VID)).
wherein the information regarding the portable electronic device comprises diagnostic or performance information of the hardware components obtained by the diagnostic operation
([0017] For example, some sub-models of mobile phones and other types of electronic devices include the same product identification number (PID) and vendor identification number (VID))
([0028] carries a plurality of electrical connectors 242 (e.g., approximately 25 connectors) distributed around an outer periphery thereof… to provide power and/or exchange data with a variety of different mobile phones and/or other electronic devices… Such analysis can include, e.g., an evaluation of the make, model, configuration, condition, etc., using one or more of the methods and/or systems).
analyzing, by the app, the acquired information
([0034] Those of ordinary skill in the art can create source code, microcode, program logic arrays and/or or computer-readable instructions to implement the depicted steps and routines based on the flowcharts and the detailed description provided herein. The routines and portions thereof can be stored in non-volatile memory that forms part of a processor contained in the kiosk 100 or otherwise associated with the kiosk).
determining, by the app, an estimated payable amount for the portable electronic device based on the analyzing and
([0031] that the kiosk 100 may offer the user for the mobile phone 250 based on the visual analysis, and/or based on user input (e.g., input regarding the type, condition, etc. of the phone 250)).
displaying, on a screen of the portable electronic device, the estimated payable amount for the portable electronic device
([0026] In the illustrated embodiment, the kiosk 100 includes a housing 102 that is approximately the size of a conventional vending machine… user interface devices are provided on a front portion of the housing 102 for providing instructions and other information to users, and/or for receiving user inputs and other information from users. For example, the kiosk 100 can include a display screen… The display screen 104 can include a touch screen for receiving user input and responses to displayed prompts).
receiving the portable electronic device in a kiosk;
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
further analyzing the portable electronic device in the kiosk, the further analyzing including at least controlling a camera in the kiosk to capture one or more images of the portable electronic device located in the kiosk; and
([0029] one or more of the cameras and/or other imaging components discussed above can be movable to facilitate device evaluation).
displaying, on a screen of the kiosk, a finalized payable amount determined based upon said further analyzing the portable electronic device in the kiosk and the estimated payable amount
([0031] The display screen 104 can also provide an estimated price, or an estimated range of prices, that the kiosk 100 may offer the user for the mobile phone 250 based on the visual analysis).
Cirannek does not disclose, however, Tkachenko teaches
[based on communicating at least some of the acquired information over a network to a remote device]
([0074] the processor 170 can cooperate with the wireless communication module 142 to access a remote database of RFID serial numbers and related product details… collect corresponding real-time prices for the items selected by the patron).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Cirannek to include [based on communicating at least some of the acquired information over a network to a remote device] as taught by Tkachenko to get the real-time market pricing by accessing database/sources outside the kiosk limited pricing information – see “[0074] In one implementation, the wireless communication module 142 communicates with a remote database, such as over Wi-Fi or cellular communication protocol… The processor 170 can then retrieve a price for each of the selected items - such as from data coded into each RFID tagged, from data stored locally in memory in the vending machine 102, or from data received from a remote database - sum the current prices for the selected items… the processor 170 can cooperate with the wireless communication module 142 to access a remote database of RFID serial numbers and related product details… to collect corresponding real-time prices for the items selected by the patron.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Cirannek and Tkachenko, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Cirannek further discloses
instructing the client to perform one or more actions with the portable electronic device; and obtaining diagnostics related to at least one of a touch screen, GPS receiver, accelerometer and gyroscope
([0030] the user may be prompted to remove any cases, stickers, or other accessories from the device… the cameras and/or other imaging components in the upper and lower chambers 230 and 232 perform a visual inspection of the mobile phone… to evaluate or assess the condition and/or function of the mobile phone 250 and/or its various components and systems… The visual analysis can further include a computer-implemented inspection of a display screen on the mobile phone 250 to check for, e.g., cracks in the glass and/or other damage or defects in the LCD (e.g., defective pixels, etc.)).
([0065] For example, the mobile device 830 can include… well-known input devices, including, for example, a touch screen 842, a keypad, etc.).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Cirannek and Tkachenko, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Cirannek further discloses
acquiring one or more images of the portable electronic device; and acquiring one or more recordings of audio output of the portable electronic device
([0029] enable the mobile phone 250 to be photographed and/or otherwise optically evaluated from all, or at least most viewing angles (e.g., top, bottom, sides, etc.) using, e.g., one or more cameras, mirrors, etc.… and the like, for further evaluation of electronic devices placed therein).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Cirannek and Tkachenko, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Cirannek further discloses
automatically detecting that the portable electronic device is near the kiosk; and responsive to the detecting, transferring diagnostic information from the portable electronic device to the kiosk
([0065] the wireless transceiver 824 can facilitate wireless communication with handheld devices, such as a mobile device 830 (e.g., a smartphone) either in the proximity of the kiosk 100 or remote therefrom… Such communication can be performed via, e.g., the communication link 850 (which can include the Internet, public and private intranet, a local or extended Wi-Fi network, cell towers, the plain old telephone system (POTS), etc.), direct wireless communication, etc.) and
([0063] The CPU 800 can provide information and instructions to kiosk users via the display screen 104 and/or an audio system (e.g., a speaker) 804. The CPU 800 can also receive user inputs via, e.g., a touch screen 808 associated with the display screen 104, a keypad with physical keys, and/or a microphone 810).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Cirannek and Tkachenko, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Cirannek further discloses
comparing the acquired information to a database of performance metrics for a plurality of devices; and
based on the comparing determine whether the portable electronic device is a counterfeit
([0017] Often different models of electronic devices (e.g., mobile phones) may look very similar (or even identical), even though the particular devices may in fact be very different in terms of electrical components, features, etc. This is especially true in the case of a mobile phone model that has a number of different sub-models that, although appearing visually similar, may actually have a wide variety of different electrical features).
([0020] automated equipment for detecting and identifying these devices may need to be “trained” to identify and evaluate the devices).
([0028] carries a plurality of electrical connectors 242 (e.g., approximately 25 connectors) distributed around an outer periphery thereof… to provide power and/or exchange data with a variety of different mobile phones and/or other electronic devices… Such analysis can include, e.g., an evaluation of the make, model, configuration, condition, etc., using one or more of the methods and/or systems).
See also Fig. 4.
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 8 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 10 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 3.
Claim 12 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 5.
Claim 13 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 6.
Claim 14 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 7.
Claim 15 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 17 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 3.
Claim 19 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 5.
Claim 20 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 6.
Claims 2, 8, and 10 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cirannek in view of Tkachenko, further in view of and Ekster (20140214519).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Cirannek and Tkachenko, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Cirannek further discloses
the acquired information includes
[information regarding a client owner of the portable electronic device]
diagnostic information regarding the portable electronic device
( [0016] and methods for determining prices for mobile phones and other consumer electronic devices, and for performing other operations associated with electronic device recycling… consumer-operated kiosks that can perform automatic visual and/or electrical inspections of mobile phones and/or other consumer electronic devices that are submitted to the kiosks for sale or recycling… the visual evaluation or inspection can be performed using one or more cameras or other imaging devices) and
([0017] For example, some sub-models of mobile phones and other types of electronic devices include the same product identification number (PID) and vendor identification number (VID)).
Cirannek does not disclose
[information regarding a client owner of the portable electronic device]
However, Ekster teaches
[information regarding a client owner of the portable electronic device]
See figure 11, for user information item # 1131.
PNG
media_image3.png
200
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combination Cirannek and Tkachenko to include [information regarding a client owner of the portable electronic device] as taught by Ekster to provide a platform to facilitate product transaction by providing the valuation by simply using a common mobile user device with user information. See paragraphs 20 and 46 – “[0020] The PSP introduces a new type of marketing platform that facilitates product purchases by providing relevant geolocation information, product information (e.g., product description, product brand, product size, product pricing, and/or the like… for providing such information via a mobile PSP application… the PSP may be used to provide users with offers to facilitate product purchases…”; and
“[0046] FIG. 11 provides an example of how data may flow to, through, and/or from the PSP when the PSP acquires data (e.g., geolocation information, demographic information, social network information, and/or the like) from a user. In FIG. 11, the user 1102 may provide a user information input 1131 to the PSP client 1106 to obtain rewards… the user information input may include data such as a user identifier… The PSP client may communicate with a PSP server 1110 to provide an information input 1135 to the PSP server. For example, the information input may include data such as a user identifier.”
Claim 8 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 10 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 3.
Claims 4, 11, and 18 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cirannek in view of Tkachenko, further in view of and Ou (JP2007042082A).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Cirannek and Tkachenko, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1.
The combination of Cirannek and Tkachenko do not disclose but Ou does teaches
analyzing system logs of the portable electronic device; and
obtaining diagnostics related at least to a network interface from the system logs
(Page 5, last paragraph, The observation processing step is a processing step of observing the state of the wireless device and determining that all are normal states are healthy and some are not normal states are poor. For example, each time an embedded application calls a function, data such as function arguments and return values are recorded as a system log, and the recorded data is analyzed to determine whether the wireless device is in a healthy or unwell state).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combination Cirannek and Tkachenko to include analyzing system logs of the portable electronic device; and obtaining diagnostics related at least to a network interface from the system logs as taught by Ou to examine the system log to diagnose the wireless device for what is wrong and what needs to be done to correct the problems. See page 11, paragraph 3 “diagnostic application treats a disease recognized as a specialist treating the disease in the system. First, in order to investigate the cause of the disease, a detailed examination is performed. As a test, the relevant system parameters and system logs are examined to collect information data necessary for treatment, for example, information on a function that identifies where the disease occurred. If necessary, prepare test data, run the test program, narrow down the place where the disease occurred, and collect diagnostic data that identifies the cause of the disease, such as the NULL pointer that caused the system crash. The diagnostic data acquired by the examination is stored in the diagnostic information 37.”
Claim 11 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 4.
Claim 18 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 4.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that:
“35 U.S.C. 112(a)… "network interface"… including at paragraphs [0119]-[0120]… paragraph [0249],”
the examiner respectfully disagrees. The cited paragraphs do not disclose “network interface”. Rather, paragraphs [0119]-[0120] described a process (if ID is verified, user session is updated, and storing may be non-volatile or remote). And paragraph [0249] also described a process (if ID is verified, process may proceed to operation).
In response to applicant's argument that:
“35 U.S.C. 101… Amended claim 1 recites additional features… to a practical application… (reciting the claim language),”
the examiner respectfully disagrees. In comparison to the prior version, the added elements (see underlined) and deleted elements (if any, struck out with a line) are essentially:
(1) “based at least on diagnostic operations performed on hardware components of a portable electronic device”;
(2) “wherein the information regarding the portable electronic device comprises diagnostic or performance information of the hardware components obtained by the diagnostic operation”;
(3) “and based on communicating at least some of the acquired information over a network to a remote device”; and
(4) “the further analyzing including at least controlling a camera in the kiosk to capture one or more images of the portable electronic device located in the kiosk”;
These changes are not sufficient to overcome the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections because: for 101 analysis purpose, this is just stating (corresponding to the numberings above):
explain the data source/type (the information used in pricing is from “diagnostic operation”);
explain the data source/type;
explain the data source/type; and
explain the process involve the use of a camera;
These are abstract ideas. There is nothing technical about it.
Note that the element “controlling a camera in the kiosk” is recited at a high level of generality, e.g., using a camera. It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
As stated in the prior office action:
“Using a device to look up the item pricing then taking the item to the service provider (the kiosk) to be priced again, is an abstract idea. The examiner is not arguing that the claim language lacks generic electronic devices. Rather, the examiner has determined that such devices amount to nothing more than “generic computers”, used in such a way that it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The examiner cannot see how sending/receiving/processing information by electronic devices – as described – improves a technology.”
In response to applicant's argument that:
“Thus, claim 1 does not merely require "looking up the value of a product/device" as suggested in the Office Action, but specifically requires the acquired information regarding the portable electronic device to comprise diagnostic or performance information of hardware components of the portable electronic device determined based at least on diagnostic operations of the hardware components performed by an app executed on the same portable electronic device,”
the examiner respectfully disagrees. The quoted argument above simply states that the information used to price an item is based on the information on the item and that such information is acquired by the disclosed hardware (e.g. a camera). There is no technical innovation.
In response to applicant's argument that:
“claim 1 does not merely require "looking up the value of a product/device" as suggested in the Office Action, but specifically requires further analysis by at least capturing one or more images of the portable electronic device when located in the kiosk and subsequently displaying a finalized payable amount based on both the further analysis in the kiosk and the estimated payable amount determined by the app prior to the portable electronic device being received in the kiosk,”
the examiner respectfully disagrees. Again, this is just having a camera take a picture to determine the price. Again, there is no technical innovation.
In response to applicant's argument that:
“amounts to "significantly more"… determined based at least on self-diagnostics performed by an app executing on the same portable electronic device before the portable electronic device is received in a kiosk,”
the examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims do not disclose any “self-diagnostics” being performed. It only discloses (positively recites) the acquisition of diagnostic information. It is really unclear how the process is “self-diagnostics” when is driven by an external app. The only thing that is clear is that “the information regarding the portable electronic device comprises diagnostic or performance information of the hardware components obtained by the diagnostic operation”. See claim 1.
In response to applicant's argument that:
“35 U.S.C. 103… Amended claim 1 recites… … (reciting the claim language)… Ekster fails to disclose or even suggest "acquiring, based at least on diagnostic operations performed on hardware components… based on the further analyzing and based on communicating at least some of the acquired information over a network to a remote server,”
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new analysis in view of the additional reference and to the new analysis in view of the additional language from the reference being used in the current rejection.
In response to applicant's argument that:
“Saario merely teaches that the kiosk assigns a value and completely fails to teach or even suggest that the assigned value is based on analyzing the portable electronic device in the kiosk and the estimated payable amount determined based on the analyzing of information acquired by the portable electronic device before the portable electronic device is received in the kiosk,”
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new analysis in view of the additional reference and to the new analysis in view of the additional language from the reference being used in the current rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK H GAW whose telephone number is (571)270-0268. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 9am -5pm.
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, Mike Anderson can be reached on 571 270-0508. 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.
/MARK H GAW/Examiner, Art Unit 3693