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 .
Response to Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of applicant’s preliminary amendment filed on 5/24/24. Claims 1-19 canceled and 33-45 canceled. Claims 20-32 are pending and an action on the merits is as follows.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of undue length. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 20-30, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Bowles US Publication No. US 20160125548 A1.
Re Claim 20, Bowles discloses a kiosk for evaluating previously-owned electronic devices, comprising:
one or more cameras configured to capture images of a previously-owned electronic device including one or more microdefects and/or micro-differences, wherein the one or more microdefects and/or micro-differences are invisible to the naked eye (P25-26, one or more cameras, magnification tools, scanners (e.g., bar code scanners, infrared scanners, etc.) or other imaging components (not shown) and an arrangement of mirrors (also not shown) to view, photograph and/or otherwise visually evaluate the mobile phone 250 from multiple perspectives ;
and a processor configured to: control the one or more cameras to capture the images; detect the one or more microdefects and/or micro-differences in the captured images; and use the detected one or more microdefects and/or micro-differences to distinguishingly identify the previously-owned electronic 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 250. In some embodiments, the visual inspection can include a computer-implemented visual analysis (e.g., a three-dimensional (“3D”) analysis) performed by a processing device within the kiosk (e.g., a CPU) to confirm the identification of the mobile phone 250 (e.g. make, model and/or sub-model) and/or to evaluate or assess the condition and/or function of the mobile phone 250 and/or its various components and systems. For example, the visual analysis can include computer-implemented evaluation (e.g., a digital comparison) of images of the mobile phone 250 taken from top, side and/or end view perspectives to determine length, width, and/or height (thickness) dimensions of the mobile phone 250. 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.).
Re Claim 21, Bowles discloses the kiosk according to claim 20, wherein the processor is further configured to validate the identity of the previously-owned electronic device based on the detected one or more microdefects and/or micro-difference (P25, P32 magnification tools, scanners (e.g., bar code scanners, infrared scanners, etc.) or other imaging components (not shown) and an arrangement of mirrors (also not shown) to view, photograph and/or otherwise visually evaluate the mobile phone 250 from multiple perspectives, P26 the cameras and/or other imaging components in the upper and lower chambers 230 and 232 perform a visual inspection of the mobile phone 250. In some embodiments, the visual inspection can include a computer-implemented visual analysis (e.g., a three-dimensional (“3D”) analysis) performed by a processing device within the kiosk (e.g., a CPU) to confirm the identification of the mobile phone 250 (e.g. make, model and/or sub-model) and/or to evaluate or assess the condition and/or function of the mobile phone 250 and/or its various components and systems.
Re Claim 22, Bowles discloses a kiosk for evaluating previously-owned electronic devices, comprising:
an evaluation area configured to temporarily include within it a previously owned electronic device (P16);
one or more cameras arranged to capture images of the previously owned electronic device within the evaluation area (P44, block 404, the routine evaluates the electronic device. As described above, in some embodiments this can include visual and/or electrical inspection and analysis. This can include, for example, utilizing one more one or more cameras, mirrors, etc., mounted to or otherwise associated with the upper and lower chambers 230 and 232 (FIG. 2A) to determine, for example, the length, width, and thickness dimensions of the device (e.g., “primary” visual/physical features). By way of example, in some embodiments this can include obtaining images of the device from multiple angles (e.g., top, end, side) ); and
a processor configured to: select a context from a plurality of preconfigured contexts in accordance with a user-selected service; configuring a set of rules based on the selected context; and control at least the one or more cameras in accordance with the configured set of rules to determine an evaluation of the previously owned electronic device (P44-P45, By way of example, in some embodiments this can include obtaining images of the device from multiple angles (e.g., top, end, side) and measuring the images to determine the external dimensions of the device. In some embodiments, ese primary features can be compared (via, e.g., a template matching process) to corresponding features (e.g., length, width, thickness, etc.) of known devices stored in, e.g., a database to determine a candidate group of devices to which the subject device may belong. This information can then be used to inform further “secondary” visual inspections and/or imaging of the device to determine other visual characteristics or features, such as the existence and type of a logo (e.g., a model or brand logo), a SIM card location (as evidenced by, e.g. a hole for insertion of a SIM card eject tool), antenna location, connector ports, button locations and sizes, etc. Additionally, the device can be visually inspected/imaged to ascertain the condition and/or function of the device, such as display screen condition (e.g. cracks in the screen glass), case condition, LCD function, etc. As described above with reference to, for example, FIG. 2C, electrical evaluation can include operably connecting a suitable electrical connector (e.g., a USB connector) to the mobile phone, and executing computer-readable instructions by the kiosk processing device to query or otherwise interrogate the mobile phone for information about device identity, features, etc. In block 406, one or more insurance options are determined. In some embodiments, information gathered either by user input or by the electrical and/or visual evaluation is used to determine one or more insurance options. For example, based on the identified device and its evaluated condition, one or more insurance options can be determined.
Re Claim 23, Bowles discloses the kiosk according to claim 22, wherein the selected context is determined based upon the user-selected service (P45; Fig. 4).
Re Claim 24, Bowles discloses the kiosk according to claim 23, wherein the selected context is further determined based upon a third party service provider, and wherein the kiosk is further configured to communicate with the third party service provider through a service interface (P45).
Re Claim 25, Bowles discloses an apparatus for evaluating previously-owned electronic devices, comprising: an evaluation area configured to temporarily include within it a previously owned electronic device; one or more cameras arranged to capture images of the previously owned electronic device within the evaluation area; and a processor configured to: evaluate the previously-owned electronic device using at least the one or more cameras; and based on the evaluation, provide at least one of a repair quote, an insurance or warranty quote, an insurance or warranty claim, a certification, or a promise to purchase for the evaluated previously-owned electronic device (P44-P47)
Re Claim 26, Bowles discloses the apparatus according to claim 25, further comprising: a vault (collection bin ) for temporarily storing the evaluated previously-owned electronic device (P25).
Re Claim 27, Bowles discloses the apparatus according to claim 26, wherein the processor is further configured to provide for an owner of the previously-owned electronic device to trade the evaluated previously-owned electronic device, and to facilitate storing the traded previously- owned electronic device in the vault (P15, P32-P34, P37, P39 If the user accepts the offer, the routine 300 continues in block 324 by retaining the electronic device (e.g., in the collection bin 234 of the kiosk 100).).
Re Claim 28, Bowles discloses the apparatus according to claim 25, the processor is further configured to provide said at least one of a repair quote, an insurance or warranty quote, an insurance or warranty claim, a certification, or a promise to purchase for the evaluated previously-owned electronic device, in coordination with a central server and/or remote operator (P39).
Re Claim 29, Bowles discloses the apparatus according to claim 28, wherein the central server is configured to retrieve stored previous evaluation session information of the previously-owned electronic device based on unique identification of the previously-owned electronic device as determined in the current evaluation (P45).
Re Claim 30, Bowles discloses the apparatus according to claim 29, wherein the central server is further configured to use microdefects and/or micro-differences detected in images of the previously-owned electronic device at least in part as the unique identification (P44-P45.
Re Claim 32, Bowles discloses the apparatus according to claim 25, the processor is further configured to provide said at least one of a repair quote, an insurance or warranty quote, an insurance or warranty claim, a certification, or a promise to purchase for the evaluated previously-owned electronic device, in coordination with a third party service provider via a service interface(P39). .
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, 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.
Claim(s) 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bowles US Publication No. US 20160125548 A1 in view of DION US Publication No. 20170323279 A1 cited by Applicant.
Re Claim 31, Bowles discloses the apparatus according to claim 29.
Bowles fails to disclose wherein the processor is further configured to command a user to input a code for displaying an IMEI of the previously-owned electronic device (intended use) , and wherein the central server is further configured to use the IMEI captured from a screen of the previously-owned electronic device at least in part as the unique identification.
DION discloses wherein the processor is further configured to command a user to input a code for displaying an IMEI of the previously-owned electronic device, and wherein the central server is further configured to use the IMEI captured from a screen of the previously-owned electronic device at least in part as the unique identification (P22,P272,- P273, P280; Fig. 33).
Given the teachings of DION it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of DION with wherein the processor is further configured to command a user to input a code for displaying an IMEI of the previously-owned electronic device, and wherein the central server is further configured to use the IMEI captured from a screen of the previously-owned electronic device at least in part as the unique identification.
Doing so would accelerate the validation process and thus speed up the transaction at the kiosk.
Conclusion
The following reference is cited but not relied upon:
Bowles et al discloses recycling kiosk includes an inspection area with preferably two mirrored, domed hemispheres positioned about a transparent table and cameras for imaging an electronic device placed on the table. The recycling kiosk uses visual analysis to identify electronic devices, determine the condition of the electronic device and determine if the electronic device is authentic.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SONJI N JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5266. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-9pm.
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, Steven Paik can be reached at 5712722404. 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.
SONJI N. JOHNSON
Examiner
Art Unit 2876
/SONJI N JOHNSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
Prosecution Insights