DETAILED ACTION The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file pro visions of the AIA. Claims 1-17 have been submitted for examination and are pending further prosecution by the United States Patent & Trademark Office. Allowable Subject Matter With respect to independent claim 1, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest, either solely or in combination, the limitations " receiving selection of a user related to a "user operation before insertion" through a user interface (UI) screen of an automated device; in response to selection of "Insert while screen is turned on" as the "user operation before insertion", recognizing a product information identifier (ID) screen displayed on a display of a mobile device inserted into an insertion space of the automated device;" when considered in combination with the other limitations of claim 1. With respect to independent claim 9, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest, either solely or in combination, the limitations " a selection unit configured to receive selection of a user related to a "user operation before insertion" through a user interface (UI) screen of an automated device; and a recognition unit configured to, in response to selection of "Insert while screen is turned on" as the "user operation before insertion", recognize a product information identifier (ID) screen displayed on a display of a mobile device inserted into an insertion space of the automated device;" when considered in combination with the other limitations of claim 9. Allowability of claims 1-17 is predicated on resolution of the rejection of claims 1-17 under 35 USC § 112 described below. Claim Interpretation The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a recognition unit in claims 9 -13 ; a processing unit in claim 1 2 ; and a correction unit in claim 13. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention. Examiner has noted Applicants use of quotation marks throughout the claims. For example, claim 1 recites the phrases "user operation before insertion" and "Insert while screen is turned on". Use of quotation marks renders the claims ambiguous as the purpose of the quotation marks, when applied to text within the quotes, is unclear. For example, does use of quotes in the phrase "Insert while screen is turned on" require the exact text Insert while screen is turned on to be displayed on the user interface screen of the automated device? Examiner suggests Applicants remove all quotes throughout the claims and amend the claims to generalize user operations such as Insert while screen is turned on , Insert after installing app, Install app after insertion, and Insert after unlocking password . Claim 9 is rejected for the same reasons given for analogous claim 1. Claims 2-8 and 10-17 are rejected for inheriting the deficiencies of their respective base claims and are further rejected for their respective use of quotation marks. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. JP WO2002008981 A1 discloses a method, device and system for purchasing goods whereby a user inserts and mounts a mobile device onto a QR code reader of a store terminal, the mobile device displaying a QR approval certification key on its display unit, the QR code reader then reading the QR approval certification key and transferring the read result to a shop terminal; US 20130046699 A1 discloses a recycling kiosk for recycling electronic device s in exchange for compensation , whereby a user places a mobile phone on a transparent plate of the kiosk , the mobile phone then being transferred to an inspection area of the kiosk which reads the IMEI number or a unique serial number on a display screen of the mobile phone; WO 2017081527 A1 discloses systems and methods for capturing information about a mobile device, whereby a user places a mobile device within a drawer of an assessment apparatus, such as a kiosk, the assessment apparatus using one or more imaging devices to capture identification information of the mobile device when the mobile device is positioned within the drawer ; US 20220051507 A1 discloses a kiosk for purchasing, selling and recycling mobile phones, whereby a user places a mobile phone on an inspection area of a kiosk, the user interacting with the mobile phone to display model identification, such as a serial number of the phone, which is then captured by a camera in the inspection area ; DE 202012013185 U1 discloses an apparatus for recycling electronic devices such as mobile phones, the apparatus displaying transaction options for interacting with a user, which involve turning on a mobile phone, checking and optically scanning, erasing stored data, fixing the value of the electronic device and recognizing the value, and remuneration by the customer ; and the NPL document " International Mobile Equipment Identity " is Wikipedia's entry on the subject. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT GEOFFREY R ST LEGER whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7720 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F (IFP) ~9:00-5:00 pm . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Hyung S Sough can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-6799 . 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. /GEOFFREY R ST LEGER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2192