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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forutanpour et al (US 10,269,110 B2) in view of Zellner et al (US 2023/0188998 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Forutanpour teaches
a kiosk system (400) for recycling an electronic device, i.e3. mobile phones/electronic device (103), as illustrated in figure 1, having a display screen (302), as illustrated in figure 3a and as mentioned at col. 4, line 66-col. 5, line 11, with a
plurality of pixels, i.e., the region (309) which corresponds to 8 x 8 pixels, the kiosk system (400) comprising:
a kiosk (400), including-
a housing (402);
an inspection area (408) within the housing (40), as illustrated in figure 4, wherein the inspection area (408) is configured to receive the electronic device (103); and
a camera, i.e., imaging device (101), as mentioned at col.8, lines 22-42 and camera (416), as mentioned at col. 12, line 62-col. 13, line 41, positioned within the housing (402) and configured to obtain one or more images of the display screen, as mentioned at col. 14, lines 42-45, col. 14, line 58-col. 15, line 35; and
one or more processors, i.e., computing device (105) as illustrated in figure 1 and as mentioned at col. 3, lines 30-60, for example, configured to execute instructions stored on non-transitory, computer-readable media, as mentioned at Claim 15, first line, mentioning “[a] computer-readable memory carrying computer-executable instructions for causing one or more processors to facilitate detecting cracks in an illuminated electronic device screen”, wherein execution of the instructions causes the one or more processors (105) to-
obtain an image of the display screen, as mentioned at col. 8, lines 22-42, for example, while the display screen is displaying a test image;
based at least in part on the image of the display screen, determine a standard deviation of color and/or brightness for at least a subset of the plurality of pixels, as mentioned at col. 2, lines 11-56 and col. 6, line 3-col. 7, line 21, and noting the kernels (311a-311j) as illustrated in figure 3b and as mentioned at col. 5, lines 12-24, for example; and
determine an offer price for the electronic device based at least in part on the standard deviation, as mentioned at col. 15, line 36-col. 16, line 15.
Regarding Claim 1, Forutanpour does not expressly teach
wherein execution of the instructions causes the one or more processors to-
obtain an image of the display screen while the display screen is displaying a test image;
based at least in part on the image of the display screen, determine a standard deviation of color and/or brightness for at least a subset of the plurality of pixels.
Regarding Claim 1, Forutanpour does not expressly teach, but Zellner teaches
wherein execution of the instructions causes the one or more processors (101, 201), as mentioned in paragraphs 4, 17, 84 and 97, for example, to-
obtain an image of the display screen while the display screen is displaying a test image, as mentioned at paragraphs 59, 62, 154, 158 and 161 and as illustrated in figures 25 and 28, for example;
based at least in part on the image of the display screen, determine a standard deviation of color and/or brightness for at least a subset of the plurality of pixels, as mentioned at paragraph 161, for example.
Regarding Claim 1, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have provided wherein execution of the instructions causes the one or more processors to-
obtain an image of the display screen while the display screen is displaying a test image;
based at least in part on the image of the display screen, determine a standard deviation of color and/or brightness for at least a subset of the plurality of pixels, as taught by Zellner, in Forutanpour’s Kiosk inspection routine, for the purpose of more accurately determining the operation status of a particular mobile device offered for recycling to the kiosk.
Regarding Claim 2, Forutanpour teaches wherein the camera (101) is a first camera, as illustrated in figure 5a, and noting the mention of “cameras and/or other imaging components in the upper and lower chambers 530 and 532 performs visual inspection of the mobile phone 550” as mentioned at col. 15, lines 10-19, wherein the electronic device (550) is implied and suggested to includes a second camera, wherein the kiosk (400) further comprises one or more lighting elements positioned within the inspection area (408), as mentioned at col. 8, lines 38-42, i.e., “imaging device 101 can also include an illumination source (e.g., LEDs, fluorescent bulbs, lamps, etc.) which can also aid in obtaining images of the electronic device 103 under uniform lighting conditions”, and wherein execution of the one or more processors (105) to activate individual ones of the one or more lighting elements, i.e., illumination source (131) as mentioned at col. 3, lines 41-45 and as illustrated at figure 1, for example.
Regarding Claim 2, Forutanpour does not expressly teach wherein the electronic device includes a second camera,
and wherein execution of the one or more processors to activate individual ones of the one or more lighting elements, to cause the second camera to receive light from the activated lighting elements and thereby cause the display screen to display the test image.
Regarding Claim 2, Forutanpour does not expressly teach, but Zellner teaches wherein the electronic device, i.e., the mobile device (1001), as illustrated in figure 10, includes a second camera, i.e., the front facing camera of the mobile device as mentioned at paragraphs 154 and 160, wherein the kiosk, as taught by Forutanpour, further comprises one or more lighting elements positioned within the inspection area, as taught by Forutanpour, and wherein execution of the one or more processors to activate individual ones of the one or more lighting elements, as taught by Forutanpour, to cause the second camera, i.e., the front facing cameras of the mobile device or another camera from another mobile device as mentioned in paragraph 154, to receive light from the activated lighting elements, as taught by Forutanpour, and thereby cause the display screen to display the test image, as mentioned at paragraphs 154, 155, 160 and 161, which state as follows.
[0154] In some embodiments, the image capture of the mobile device may proceed by instructing the user (e.g., via GUI text or visual instructions on the mobile device screen) to place the mobile device in front of a mirror such that the front-face (e.g., screen) of the mobile device is facing the mirror, wherein the mobile device comprises one or more front-facing cameras. A similar process may be used to capture an image of the rear surface (e.g., rear glass) of a mobile device with a rear-facing camera. An example of such placement may be shown in FIG. 10, wherein a mobile device 1001 is placed in front of a mirror 1002 and the reflection of the mobile device’s front-face 1003 is placed in view of one or more of the mobile device’s front-facing cameras (not pictured) for capture. In some embodiments, one or more images may be captured by the mobile device for analysis. In some embodiments, a graphic, test pattern, code, or blank screen may be displayed during the image capture. In some embodiments, a second device (e.g., another mobile device or separate camera) may be used in connection with one or more of the apparatuses (e.g., via USB connection, Ethernet, or the like) to capture the image(s).
[0155] In some embodiments, and once an image of the mobile device has been captured at block 702, the image may be reviewed either by the mobile device or an external computing system (e.g., by the provider system 305 or the remote verification system 307) to determine if the image shows damage to the device (e.g., screen damage). In some embodiments, analysis of the image may comprise the image of the front-face of the mobile device may be divided into parts to determine if one or more parts shows damage at blocks 703-704. In some embodiments, the algorithm may further determine if one or more parts adjacent to parts showing damage also show damage. In some embodiments, a neural network or machine learning model may be trained to determine if one or more parts of the image(s) show damage. In some embodiments, the neural network or machine learning model used to determine if the image contains damage may be stored in the mobile device on a local memory or external to the mobile device (e.g., in a provider system 305 and/or a remote verification system 307). In some embodiments, the images of the mobile device may be transmitted to an external system (e.g., a provider system 305 and/or a remote verification system 307) for image analysis by the remote verification system or a system associated with the remote verification system. In some embodiments, the neural networks herein may include those used and described in U.S. Pat. No. 10,332,249, which was issued Jun. 25, 2019 and is entitled “Screen damage detection for devices”, which patent is hereby incorporated by reference herein in its entirety.
[0160] In some embodiments, the screen crack detection routine may comprise another configured GUI, such as configured GUI 2200 of FIG. 22, to indicate the user should face the screen of the mobile device toward a mirror (e.g., as shown by graphics on the configured GUI at 2202). In some embodiments, the configured GUI 2200 may comprise one or more graphics and/or fiducials (e.g., 2201A, 2201B, 2201C,...2201N) in order to align and recognize the image of the screen taken by the camera of the mobile device. In some embodiments, the configured GUI of the screen crack detection routine may comprise one or more indicators, such as text and/or graphics, backwards (e.g., reading right to left) such that when the screen of the mobile device is shown in the mirror, the text and/or graphics is shown forwards (e.g., reading left to right), such an embodiment may be shown in configured GUI 2300 of FIG. 23 as 2301 in reading “calibrating” backwards. In some embodiments, the front-facing camera of the mobile device may be collecting image data during the processes of FIG. 22 and/or FIG. 23, such that when the fiducials or other graphics are detected in the camera data, the reversed text and/or start of the screen crack detection image data may be initiated automatically, such that the mobile device seamlessly keeps its text readable to the user and initiates the crack detection process. In some embodiments, the configured GUI of the mobile device may comprise an indication for the user to hold the mobile device toward the mirror for a specified distance (e.g., 15 inches), like that shown at 2302. In some embodiments, the configured GUI of the mobile device for the screen crack detection routine may comprise an indication that some predetermined requirement has happened (e.g., the capturing of an image with good image quality, successful calibration, a specified time period, etc.).
[0161] In some embodiments, the screen crack detection routine may comprise a configured GUI comprising an indication for the user to hold the mobile device still for a specific time period (e.g., by use of a graphic or text), wherein the graphic may comprise a stamp of a hand such as that shown at 2401 in configured GUI 2400 of FIG. 24. For example, the graphic of the hand shown at 2401 may be shown on the configured GUI until a test pattern, such as a flash of color (e.g., white or green) and/or light is shown on the mobile device (such as the configured GUI 2500 of FIG. 25). The camera may capture the test pattern (e.g., the green image of FIG. 25) for analysis of the screen for cracks and other damage, which image may be processed locally and/or transmitted to the remote verification system 307 for review. In some embodiments, the screen crack detection routine may comprise a configured GUI (e.g., configured GUI 2600 of FIG. 26) to indicate that there were no screen cracks detected in the screen crack detection routine in an instance in which the device passes the test. For example, the configured GUI 2600 may comprise text or graphics indicating that no damage to the screen of the mobile device was found, such as the text, “No Cracks Detected” at 2601. In some embodiments, the configured GUI 2600 may comprise a link to further details of the output of the screen crack detection routine, which may configure the GUI to take the user to another page comprising the details of the screen crack detection routine, such as that shown at 2602. In some embodiments, the screen crack detection routine may configure the GUI to comprise a link to allow the user of the mobile device to re-run the screen crack detection routine, as shown at 2603 of configured GUI 2600, which option may be present only in the case of failure or in the case of both failure and passage of the screen crack detection routine. In some embodiments, the screen crack detection routine may comprise a button (e.g., “Continue” button at 2604) for the user to select on the configured GUI to continue to the next step of the remote verification process.
Emphasis provided.
Regarding Claim 2, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have provided wherein the electronic device includes a second camera,
and wherein execution of the one or more processors to activate individual ones of the one or more lighting elements, to cause the second camera to receive light from the activated lighting elements and thereby cause the display screen to display the test image, as taught by Zellner, in Forutanpour’s Kiosk inspection routine, for the purpose of more accurately determining the operation status of a particular mobile device offered for recycling to the kiosk by enabling use of a test screen that is automatically determined within the kiosk. Note also that although Zellner uses a mirror to enable the mobile device itself to use its own cameras to take images of the display with the test pattern, it would have been well within the skill of an ordinarily skilled artisan to have adapted Zellner’s test pattern method to be used with Forutanpour’s Kiosk cameras by replacing the mirror with one of the several cameras within the kiosk inspection area.
Regarding Claim 3, Forutanpour teaches wherein the one or more lighting elements, as mentioned at col. 8, lines 38-42, i.e., “imaging device 101 can also include an illumination source (e.g., LEDs, fluorescent bulbs, lamps, etc.) which can also aid in obtaining images of the electronic device 103 under uniform lighting conditions”, are positioned to directly illuminate the second camera, as mentioned at col. 15, lines 10-16, stating “[t]he upper chamber 530 then moves downwardly to generally enclose the mobile phone 550 between the upper and lower chambers 530 and 532, and the cameras and/or other imaging components in the upper and lower chambers 530 and 532 perform a visual inspection of the mobile phone 550”, wherein the kiosk (400) further comprises a kiosk display screen (404) as mentioned at col. 12, line 66-col. 13, line 1, as illustrated in figure 4, for example.
Regarding Claim 3, Forutanpour does not expressly teach
and wherein execution of the instructions further causes the one or more processors to prompt a user, via the kiosk display screen, to-
activate a camera mode of the electronic device, and
place the electronic device within the inspection area with the second camera oriented toward the one or more lighting elements.
Regarding Claim 3, Forutanpour does not expressly teach, but Zellner teaches
and wherein execution of the instructions further causes the one or more processors to prompt a user, via the kiosk display screen, to-
activate a camera mode of the electronic device, and
place the electronic device within the inspection area with the second camera oriented toward the one or more lighting elements, as illustrated in figures 12-43, noting in particular figures 21-23 and as mentioned at paragraph 160, first sentence, stating “the screen crack detection routine may comprise another configured GUI, such as configured GUI 2200 of FIG. 22, to indicate the user should face the screen of the mobile device toward a mirror (e.g., as shown by graphics on the configured GUI at 2202)”, for example, noting that facing toward the mirror is construed as also facing the device toward the previously mentioned illumination sources.
Regarding Claim 4, see the rejection of Claim 3, above.
Regarding Claim 5, Forutanpour does not expressly teach wherein the second camera and the display screen are positioned on a same side of the electronic device.
Regarding Claim 5, Forutanpour does not expressly teach, but Zellner teaches wherein the second camera, i.e., the front facing camera, and the display screen, i.e., mentioned as “screen” in paragraph 154, are positioned on a same side of the electronic device, as mentioned at paragraph 154 and as illustrated in figure 10, for example.
Regarding Claim 6, Forutanpour does not expressly teach wherein the second camera and the display screen are positioned on different sides of the electronic device.
Regarding Claim 6, Forutanpour does not expressly teach, but Zellner teaches wherein the second camera and the display screen are positioned on different sides of the electronic device, noting that the rear-facing camera as mentioned at paragraph 154 is understood to be on the opposite side of the front face of the device where the display is located.
Regarding Claim 7, Forutanpour does not expressly teach
wherein the test image is a first test image, and wherein execution of the instructions further causes the one or more processors to-
deactivate individual ones of the one or more lighting elements to cause the display screen to display a second test image different than the first test image; and
obtain one or more images of the display screen while the display screen is displaying the second test image.
Regarding Claim 7, Forutanpour does not expressly teach, but Zellner teaches
wherein the test image is a first test image, and wherein execution of the instructions further causes the one or more processors to-
deactivate individual ones of the one or more lighting elements to cause the display screen to display a second test image different than the first test image; and
obtain one or more images of the display screen while the display screen is displaying the second test image, as illustrated in figures 21-25 and as mentioned at paragraphs 159-161, for example.
Regarding Claim 8, Forutanpour teaches wherein the standard deviation is a standard deviation of brightness, i.e., interpreted as being equivalent to the average brightness as mentioned at Claims 8, 10 and 15, for example, and wherein, as part of determining the standard deviation, execution of the instructions causes the one or more processors (105) to-
for at least one pixel in the subset-
determine a first brightness of the at least one pixel,
determine a second brightness of one or more adjacent pixels,
determine a difference between the first brightness and the second brightness, and
based at least in part on the difference, determine a condition of the display screen, i.e., whether or not the screen has a crack, as mentioned at col. 2, lines 11-56, col. 4, lines 17-33, col. 6, line 3-col. 7, line 21 and as mentioned at Forutanpour Claims 8, 10 and 15 and as illustrated at figures 2 and 3b, for example.
Regarding Claim 9, Forutanpour does not expressly teach wherein the standard deviation is a standard deviation of color,
and wherein, as part of determining the standard deviation, the instructions cause the one or more processors to-
for at least one pixel in the subset-
determine a first color of the at least one pixel,
determine a second color of one or more adjacent pixels,
determine a difference between the first color and the second color, and
based at least in part on the difference, determine a condition of the display screen.
Regarding Claim 9, Forutanpour does not expressly teach, but Zellner teaches wherein the standard deviation is a standard deviation of color, as mentioned at paragraph 161, mentioning use of “flash of color (e.g., white or green) and/or light” in the second sentence,
and wherein, as part of determining the standard deviation, the instructions cause the one or more processors, as mentioned at paragraph 84, for example, to-
for at least one pixel in the subset-
determine a first color of the at least one pixel, i.e., white or green,
determine a second color of one or more adjacent pixels, i.e., white or green,
determine a difference between the first color and the second color, and
based at least in part on the difference, determine a condition of the display screen, i.e., whether or not a crack is detected, as mentioned at paragraph 161, for example.
Regarding Claim 10, Forutanpour does not expressly teach wherein-
execution of the instructions further causes the one or more processors to compare at least a portion of the test image displayed by the display screen with at least a corresponding portion of an expected test image, and
the offer price is based at least in part on the standard deviation and the comparison, as mentioned at paragraph 96, mentioning “an offer”, paragraph 132, last sentence mentioning “the GUI may be configured with a input for a GUI to be configured to show an offer for the mobile device or any other subsequent step of analysis, maintenance, or other operation associated with the mobile device, which may be based on the disablement of the security feature”, and as mentioned at paragraph 140, mentioning “actual measured operational parameters of the mobile device may be compared with acceptable values of the same parameters to determine if the mobile device passes the diagnostics for each tested parameter” and “acceptable values may be predetermined (e.g., stored in memory following empirical testing in a controlled environment) or may be determined by a computing system (e.g., apparatus 100) by aggregating operational parameters from a plurality of other mobile devices”. See paragraphs 140, 142, 146, 149, 150, 194-196, and figure 16 showing “this is a preliminary offer based on the device condition…DISPLAY: NO CRACKS” for example.
Regarding Claim 11, Forutanpour teaches wherein the one or more processors (105) are one or more processors of the kiosk (400), as illustrated in figure 5a and as mentioned at col. 8, lines 22-31, for example.
Regarding Claim 12, Forutanpour teaches wherein the one or more processors (105) are one or more processors of a remote computing device, noting communications link (109) as illustrated in figure 1 and as mentioned at col. 8, lines 22-31, for example, for example.
Regarding Claim 13, see the rejection of Claim 1, above.
Regarding Claim 14, see the rejection of Claim 2, above.
Regarding Claim 15, see the rejection of Claim 3, above.
Regarding Claim 16, see the rejection of Claim 4, above.
Regarding Claim 17, see the rejection of Claim 7, above.
Regarding Claim 18, see the rejection of Claim 8, above.
Regarding Claim 19, see the rejection of Claim 9, above.
Regarding Claim 20, see the rejection of Claim 10, above.
Regarding Claim 21, see the rejection of Claims 8, 9 and 10, above.
Regarding Claim 22, see the rejection of Claims 8, 9 and 10, above.
Regarding Claim 23, see the rejection of Claims 10, 11 and 12, above.
Regarding Claim 24, see the rejection of Claims 10, 11 and 12, above.
Conclusion
Applicant is encouraged to contact the Examiner should there be any questions about this rejection or in an endeavor to explore potential amendments or potential allowable subject matter.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure.
Jenkinson ‘725 is cited as teaching a robot arm that tests a touch screen of portable device as illustrated in figures 1-6, for example.
Silva ‘250 is cited as teaching a mobile device testing system that tests pixel by pixel of the display using a neural network, as illustrated in figure 3, for example.
Doshi ‘571 is cited as teaching a test system for mobile devices, as illustrated in figures 1-16.
Diperna ‘328 is cited as teaching a test system for mobile devices as illustrated in figures 1-39, for example.
Jenkinson ‘209 is cited as teaching a test system for mobile devices as illustrated in figures 1a-14, for example.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY ALAN SHAPIRO whose telephone number is (571)272-6943. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday generally between 8:30AM and 6:30PM.
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, Anita Y Coupe can be reached at 571-270-3614. 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.
/JEFFREY A SHAPIRO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
May 2, 2026
Prosecution Insights