DETAILED ACTION
This Final Office action is in response to Applicant’s Response on 12/19/2024. Claims 21-44 are pending; claims 31-42 are withdrawn; and, claims 21-30 and 43-44 are examined below. The effective filing date of the claimed invention is 08/17/2020.
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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21-42 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of U.S. Patent No. 11482067. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both set of claims are centered around the inspection tray, and Applicant has claimed the same concepts in each set of claims. The differences are obvious variants relating to the process of making an offer for an item, of which the process of making an offer for a known item is a known concept.
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.
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.
Claims 21-25 and 29-30, 43, 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2016/0275460 to Ploetner et al. (“Ploetner”)1 in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2020/0258343 to Forutanpour (“Forutanpour”)2.
With regard to claim 21, 23, 43, 44, Ploetner discloses the claimed kiosk for recycling electronic devices (Fig. 1 – abstract, Systems and methods for recycling electronic and/or other consumer electronic devices are disclosed herein. A kiosk configured in accordance with one embodiment of the technology includes a laser device, an imaging device, a processor operably coupled to the laser device and/or the imaging device, and a non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions stored therein that are executable by the processor.), the kiosk comprising:
an inspection tray configured to rotate from a first position to a second position (see e.g. [0022] In the illustrated embodiment, the transporter assembly 232 can include a carrier or inspection plate 244 carried on a pair of parallel mounting tracks 246a, b and operably coupled to a drive assembly (not shown). The inspection plate 244 includes an upper surface 248 onto which the mobile device 124 can be placed when the access door 106 (FIG. 1) is opened. The inspection plate 244 can be transparent, or at least partially transparent (e.g., formed of glass, Plexiglas, etc.) to enable the various surfaces of the mobile device 124 to be imaged (e.g., photographed) and/or otherwise optically evaluated from bottom viewing angles. The drive assembly can include, for example, a toothed rack and pinion gear that is driven by, e.g., an electric motor and is operably engaged with the inspection plate 244 to move the plate forward and aft on the mounting tracks 246 (as shown by arrow F) between, e.g., a first position (FIG. 2A) directly behind the access door 106, and a second position (FIG. 2B) in which the inspection plate 244 is positioned between the upper and lower chambers 234 and 236. When the inspection plate 244 is at the second position, the upper chamber 234 can translate downwardly (as shown by arrow G) to generally enclose the mobile device 124 between the upper chamber 234 and the lower chamber 236. (emphasis added)); and
an imaging system,
one or more processors operably coupled to the inspection tray and the imaging system (see e.g. abstract);
non-transitory computer readable memory having instructions that when executed by the processors cause the processors (see e.g. abstract) to -
obtain, via the imaging system, a first image of the electronic device while the electronic device is positioned on the inspection tray and while the inspection tray is in the first position (see e.g. [0047] where a first image can be taken while the mobile device is at first position), and
cause the inspection tray to rotate from the first position to a second position (see e.g. [0047] In these and other embodiments, the routine 400 can carry out the evaluation of the beam line in block 406 while simultaneously moving the mobile device 124 through the beam path of the laser device 262 and the field of view of the camera 258. Referring to FIG. 2D, in one embodiment the routine 400 can detect the length l.sub.1 of the mobile device 124 by moving the device 124 at the constant predetermined speed S.sub.X and measuring the elapsed time Δt between when the laser 276 first strikes the outermost edge at the front side 222c of the device 124 and a later time at which the laser 276 strikes the outermost edge at the rear side 222d of the device. In such an embodiment, the length l.sub.1 of the device can be calculated based on equation 2 as follows:)
obtain a second image of the electronic device while the electronic device is positioned on the inspection tray and while the inspection tray is in the second position (see e.g. Fig. 2C, 2D, where when the mobile device is moved to second position, the imager 258 provides second imagery; see [0047] where as the mobile moves from a first position to a second position, then image(s) are taken, multiple images include a first and second image).
For claim 43 – where both images include the display screen (see Ploetner at [0047]; Fig. 3C)
For claim 44 – kiosk with display that displays instructional prompts to user (see e.g. [0020] For example, the kiosk 100 can include a display screen 104 (e.g., a liquid crystal display (LCD)) or light emitting diode (LED) display screen, a projected display (such as a head-up display or a head-mounted device), and so on for providing information, prompts, etc. to users)
Ploetner does not disclose:
tray configured to rotate from first, non-horizontal position to a second, horizontal position.
Forutanpour teaches at e.g. Fig. 9, 10A, [0066] and [0070], where it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the kiosk art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the ability to accept an electronic phone for recycling at an inspection plate that is at an incline relative to horizon (see e.g. Fig. 9), the capability to rotate said inspection plate to a horizontal position (see e.g. Fig. 10A) and then at [0070] As illustrated in FIG. 11B, the MES 80 can rotate from the home position to an evaluation (e.g., grading, inspection, etc.) position. In some embodiments, the base plate 84 and/or inspection plate 100 are positioned substantially horizontal when in the evaluation position. The kiosk 10 can be configured to evaluate the electronic device 54 when the MES 80 is in the evaluation position. Evaluation of the electronic device 54 can include visual evaluation (e.g., via the cameras 60, 122) and/or electrical evaluation (e.g., via the connector 114 and/or via a software application or wireless connection) to determine various information about the device that can affect the monetary value of the device. Such information can include, for example, the make, model, sub-model of the device, the device features (e.g., memory size, cell service carrier, etc.), device operability, device charge and/or rechargeability, physical condition (e.g., presence or absence of cracks, display function and condition, etc. For claim 23, see non-perpendicular at Forutanpour Fig 9 and perpendicular at e.g. [0070-71]. In addition, Forutanpour does teach where the system is capable of taking an image at loading location (see [0069-70] where the system includes a lower camera 22 that can take a picture through inspection plate at first/loading location; and second picture(s) in other locations)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the kiosk art to include such rotatable inspection tray, as taught by Forutanpour, so that the product on the tray being inspected can be placed in at a conducive angle for user comfort and effectiveness, and then the tray can be rotated so that the system can evaluate the phone at a better angle, and/or at a better location where the proper cameras and other physical devices are so that proper visual inspection can be performed, as required by the system. See Forutanpour at e.g. [0070], [0071], [0079], etc. In other words, a POSITA seeking to improve kiosk imaging consistency and user ergonomics would have been motivated to use Forutanpour’s rotating intake/evaluation tray in Ploetner’s kiosk because Forutanpour explains that a non-horizontal ‘home’ position reduces risk of a device falling during intake and reduces kiosk depth/size, which the second (evaluation) position is horizontal for stable imaging. Combining Ploetner’s laser/camera inspection and processing flow with Forutanpour’s rotating tray and defined intake/evaluation orientations would have predictably yielded more consistent, higher quality imaging while improving user intake ergonomics and kiosk packaging—motivations expressly stated in the references themselves.
With regard to claim 22, Ploetner discloses where the imaging system includes a camera positioned to obtain the first image of the electronic device (see e,g, [0050] in the first position the device is analyzed by imagery by extracting certain information from the electronic device during a visual inspection) and the second image of the electronic device (see e.g. Fig. 2C, 2D, where when the mobile device is moved to second position, the imager 258 provides second imagery). Ploener does not disclose where this is the same camera. However, Forutanpour further teaches at abstract where the camera can take an image of the inspection tray at the first and second positions. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the kiosk art to include such rotatable inspection tray with camera imagery capability so that the product on the tray being inspected can be placed in at a conducive angle for user comfort and effectiveness, and then the tray can be rotated so that the system can evaluate the phone at a better angle, and/or at a better location where the proper cameras and other physical devices are so that proper visual inspection can be performed, as required by the system. See Forutanpour at e.g. [0070], [0071], [0079], etc.
With regard to claim 24, Ploetner discloses a display screen, wherein the display screen is configured to display the first image of the electronic device to the user (see e.g. [0020] capable of displaying images to the user).
With regard to claim 25, Ploetner further discloses an access door movable between a closed position and an open position, wherein the access door prevents user access to the inspection tray when the access door is in the closed position, the access door permits user access to the inspection tray when the access door is in the open position, and the access door is configured to be in the open position when the imaging system obtains the first image of the electronic device (e.g. [0021] [0022] [0040] etc.).
With regard to claim 29, Ploetner further discloses where imaging system includes a video camera and the first and second images of the electronic device are video images (see e.g. [0020] [0027] [0041]).
With regard to claim 30, Ploetner further discloses where the electronic device is a mobile phone (see e.g. [0012] used smart phone).
Claims 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ploetner, Forutanpour, and U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2012/0263394 to Fujiwara et al. (“Fujiwara”).
With regard to claims 26-28, Ploetner discloses: a display screen; and a processor operably connected to the imaging system and the display screen (see Fig. 1) wherein the first image of the electronic device is a distorted image and trapezoidal (), and wherein the processor is configured to correct the distortion of the first image and cause the display screen to display a corrected image of the electronic device (see e.g. [0020] where the screen is fully capable of displaying an image distorted or not). Ploetner does not disclose where the first image is distorted, and where the process is configured to correct the distortion (e.g. from trapezoidal to rectangular shape). Fujiwara teaches at e.g. [0186] and [0189-200] that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the image detection and correction art to include the ability to wherein the first image of the electronic device is a distorted image and trapezoidal (e.g. [0186]), and wherein the processor is configured to correct the distortion of the first image and cause the display screen to display a corrected image of the electronic device (see e.g. [0189-200]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the image distortion art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ploetner/Forutanpour, as combined above, with the ability to correct a image distortion e.g. from trapezoid to rectangular, where this is beneficial in that it corrects any distortion so that the user is able to see the image as it is supposed to be seen or at least in a non-distorted format.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The examiner notes that Applicant has not responded to the outstanding Double Patenting Rejection. The claims are still very similar and the rejection remains. Please file terminal disclaimer.
For the arguments under 35 USC 103, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner has fully addressed the amendments to the claims above. The examiner refers to the updated rejection above that clearly covers these limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Peter Ludwig whose telephone number is (571)270-5599. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5.
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, Fahd Obeid can be reached on 571-270-3324. 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.
/PETER LUDWIG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
1 Prior art under 35 USC 102(a)(1), with effective filing date more than 1 year prior to the present filing date of 08/17/2020.
2 Prior art under 35 USC 102(a)(1), with effective filing date (see provisional applications 62/807,153 and 62/804,714) more than 1 year prior to the present filing date of 08/17/2020.