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 .
Status of the Claims
This Office Action is in response to Applicants reply dated 2/17/2026. Claims 1, 5-6, 16, 18, 25, and 29 have been amended. Claims 1-30 are currently pending and being examined in this reply.
Response to Arguments
In regards to the 101 arguments:
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 101 rejection have been considered but are not found to be persuasive.
Applicant has argued that the claims provide for a practical application of the identified abstract idea, and that the additional elements are provided for with particularity and not a high level of generality. The Examiner disagrees. As with the board’s decision the claimed additional elements “do not add a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field” but are rather directed towards the abstract idea itself. The claims further do “not recite technological implementation details or “a particular way of programming or designing the software…, but instead merely claims the resulting system””. The claims are still just receiving, transmitting, and comparing information and offering to purchase the item. The addition of the inspection area that holds the device facing the camera, transmitting instructions to the application, or displaying identifying information on the device during the imaging of the device does not provide for a practical application in regards to 101.
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 1-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without “significantly more.” Claims 1-30 are directed to certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes, which is considered an abstract idea. Further, the claim(s) as a whole, when examined on a limitation-by-limitation basis and in ordered combination do not include an inventive concept.
Step 1 – Statutory Categories
As indicated in the preamble of the claims, the examiner finds the claims are directed to a process, machine, or article of manufacture.
Step 2A – Prong One - Abstract Idea Analysis
Exemplary claim 1 recites the following abstract concepts, in italics below, which are found to include an “abstract idea”:
A method for evaluating and purchasing a used electronic device, the method comprising: receiving, at one or more remote computers, characteristic information about the electronic device, wherein at least a portion of the characteristic information is obtained via a software application executed on the electronic device, and wherein the characteristic information includes at least one of a make, a model, a hardware configuration, or an identifier of the electronic device; receiving, at the one or more remote computers, condition information about the electronic device, wherein at least a portion of the condition information is obtained via the software application executed on the electronic device; receiving the electronic device on an inspection surface that supports the electronic device in an inspection position within an internal inspection area of a kiosk, wherein the kiosk includes an inspection camera operably associated with the inspection area and facing toward the inspection surface; transmitting, via the kiosk and/or the one or more remote computers, instructions to the software application that cause the software application to display an image on a display screen of the electronic device while the electronic device is positioned on the inspection surface and in the inspection position; receiving, via the inspection camera, an evaluation image of the electronic device after receiving the electronic device in the inspection area and while the software application is displaying the image on the display screen; comparing the evaluation image with the image to verify the identity of the electronic device: and offering to purchase the electronic device via the kiosk for a price based at least partially on the characteristic information, the condition information, and the evaluation image.
The claim features in italics above as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, are certain methods of organizing human activity (fundamental economic practice, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people) performed by generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “remote computer, kiosk, software application, inspection camera, and inspection surface” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being a method of organized human activity. For example, but for the “remote computer, kiosk, software application, inspection camera, and inspection surface” the above italicized limitation in the context of this claim encompasses certain methods of organizing human activity. If the claim limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers steps which could be a fundamental economic practice or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two - Abstract Idea Analysis
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites 5 additional elements – remote computer, kiosk, software application, inspection camera, and inspection surface. They are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f)), data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), and linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B - Significantly More Analysis
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of remote computer, kiosk, software application, inspection camera, and inspection surface amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, insignificant extra-solution activity, and linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, insignificant extra-solution activity, and linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, the background does not provide any indication that the remote computer, kiosk, software application, inspection camera, and inspection surface is anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer components. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH M MUTSCHLER whose telephone number is (313)446-6603. The examiner can normally be reached 0600-1430.
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, Florian Zeender can be reached at (571)272-6790. 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.
/JOSEPH M MUTSCHLER/Examiner, Art Unit 3627
/A. Hunter Wilder/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627