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 .
Claims 1-11 are pending.
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Utilizing the process described in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG), claims 1, 7 and 17 satisfy the Step 1 because the claims are to a system, method and non-transient CRM, respectively.
In Step 2A prong 1, claim 1 recites “recording a unique identifier of a mobile device; storing a recording of an operation…; storing a record associating the unique identifier to the recording of the operation”, which, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are steps that are performed in the human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Claim 11 recites similar features and, therefore, also recites the same abstract idea.
In Step 2A prong 2, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claimed method and CRM are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim recites “unique identifier”, “storing a recording…that physically destroys a memory chip” and “storing a record associating the unique identifier…”. However, these features are insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g., mere data gathering or displaying data in conjunction with the abstract idea. Moreover, the “recording…” step is an insignificant extra-solution activity because it is recited merely to gather data for processing. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception is not enough to qualify as “significantly more”. The additional elements or steps do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
In Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the method and CRM recite general purpose computer components, which are well-understood, routine and conventional.
Regarding claims 2-10, the claims additionally recite specifics regarding type of memory chip identified and removed from board. However, these features are mental processes as a human can perform memory/device type identification and classification. Therefore, these features do not add meaningful limitation to the abstract idea. Hence, claims 2-10 fail to remedy the deficiencies of claims 1 and 11 and are likewise rejected.
The elements recited in claims 1-11, when considered individually or in an ordered combination, fail to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1-11 are not eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5, 7, 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Forehand (US 20190065733).
For claim 1, Forehand discloses:
A method comprising:
recording a unique identifier of a mobile device (par. 0013: “Implementations described herein provide a device lifecycle distributed ledger.…When device components, such as chips, are manufactured, the component manufacturer records or transmits transactions to the distributed ledger that identify one or more components. When the devices themselves are manufactured, the device manufacture records or transmits transactions to the distributed ledger that identify the device, the components used to manufacture the device…”; par. 0016: “It should be understood that the distributed ledger 102 may be utilized for tracking lifecycles of other types of digital devices such as…mobile phones…);
storing a recording of an operation that physically destroys a memory chip from the mobile device (par. 0333: “The collection point 118 (or the customer 116) may examine the storage device 110, take a picture of the storage device 110 (including identifying information, such as a serial number), etc. and record such information to the distributed ledger 102 as an attestation transaction. Furthermore, the collection point 118 may record a video…of the device being destroyed…”); and
storing a record associating the unique identifier to the recording of the operation (par. 0333: “…[T]he collection point 118 may record a video…of the device being destroyed…and record such information with the attestation transaction.”).
For claim 5, Forehand discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the operation that physically destroys the memory chip from the mobile device is stored in a memory (Forehand, par. 0333: “…[T]he collection point 118 may record a video…of the device being destroyed…and record such information with the attestation transaction.”).
For claim 7, Forehand discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the memory chip has stored customer personal information (par. 0028, 0032: Erasure & attestation of storage devices (by both customers & other entities) disclosed).
For claim 8, Forehand discloses:
The method of claim 7, wherein the record associating the unique identifier to the recording of the operation is stored in a memory (par. 0333: “…[T]he collection point 118 may record a video…of the device being destroyed…and record such information with the attestation transaction.”).
For claim 11, Forehand discloses:
A non-transient, computer-readable storage medium comprising computer- executable instructions stored tangibly thereon, the instructions when executed causing a processor to perform the operations of:
recording a unique identifier of a mobile device (par. 0013: “Implementations described herein provide a device lifecycle distributed ledger.…When device components, such as chips, are manufactured, the component manufacturer records or transmits transactions to the distributed ledger that identify one or more components. When the devices themselves are manufactured, the device manufacture records or transmits transactions to the distributed ledger that identify the device, the components used to manufacture the device…”; par. 0016: “It should be understood that the distributed ledger 102 may be utilized for tracking lifecycles of other types of digital devices such as…mobile phones…);
storing a recording of an operation that physically destroys a memory chip from the mobile device (par. 0333: “The collection point 118 (or the customer 116) may examine the storage device 110, take a picture of the storage device 110 (including identifying information, such as a serial number), etc. and record such information to the distributed ledger 102 as an attestation transaction. Furthermore, the collection point 118 may record a video…of the device being destroyed…”); and
storing a record associating the unique identifier to the recording of the operation (par. 0333: “…[T]he collection point 118 may record a video…of the device being destroyed…and record such information with the attestation transaction.”).
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 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forehand (US 20190065733), in view of Parsons (US 20210067957).
For claim 2, Forehand discloses:
The method of claim 1, but fails to disclose “wherein the recording the unique identifier of the mobile device is performed by scanning an International Mobile Equipment Identity (IMEI) number of the mobile device and storing the unique identifier in a computer memory”.
However, in a related field, Parsons discloses an IMEI number of the mobile device being scanned prior to data erasure process”. (par. 0036, 0060). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before effective filing date of instant claimed invention to have introduced Parson’s teaching alongside Forehand. The motivation to combine would have been to confirm IMEI authenticity/lack of mismatch prior to perform device erasure (Parsons, par. 0054, 0055).
Claims 3, 4, 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forehand (US 20190065733), in view of Rujanavech (USP 11136191).
For claim 3, Forehand discloses:
The method of claim 1, but fails to disclose “wherein the operation that physically destroys the memory chip from the mobile device is performed by a computer numerical control (CNC) machine.”
However, in a related field, Rujanavech discloses a CNC unit utilized in an electronics disassembly/recycling plant (col. 40, ll 55-63). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before effective filing date of instant claimed invention to have introduced Rujanavech’s teachings alongside Forehand. The motivation to combine would have been to increase throughput of recycling and reclamation of electronic devices through use of automated techniques (Rujanavech, col 1, ll 65 – col 2, ll 7).
For claim 4, Forehand- Rujanavech discloses:
The method of claim 3, wherein the recording of the operation that physically destroys a memory chip from the mobile device is performed by a video camera (Forehand, par. 0333: “…[T]he collection point 118 may record a video…of the device being destroyed…and record such information with the attestation transaction.”).
For claim 6, Forehand discloses:
The method of claim 1, but fails to disclose “wherein the memory chip is on a logic board that has been removed from the mobile device.”
However, in a related field, Rujanavech discloses process for removal of electronic components from an electronic device (i.e., mobile phone) (Fig. 8D). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before effective filing date of instant claimed invention to have introduced Rujanavech’s teachings alongside Forehand. The motivation to combine would have been to automate recycling and reclamation of electronic devices through use of automated techniques (Rujanavech, col 1, ll 65 – col 2, ll 7).
For claim 9, Forehand discloses:
The method of claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose “wherein components of the mobile device are salvageable after the memory chip is destroyed.”
However, in a related field, Rujanavech discloses process for recycling/salvage of components from an electronic device for use in future products (col 6, ll 8-15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before effective filing date of instant claimed invention to have introduced Rujanavech’s teachings alongside Forehand. The motivation to combine would have been to lessen environmental impact associated with improper disposal of electronic device with components that may instead be reused in future products (Rujanavech, col 6, ll 15-22).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forehand (US 20190065733).
For claim 10, Forehand discloses:
The method of claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose “further comprising failing to erase customer personal information from the memory chip prior to performing the operation that physically destroys the memory chip from the mobile device.”
Forehand teaches attestation transactions recorded to a ledger to prove that data have been erased (par. 0032) and destruction (and accompanying video verification) of a storage device (par. 0033). However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before effective filing date of instant application, apprised of teaching of Forehand and the general state of the art, to have contemplated physically destroying memory chip after “failing to erase customer personal information from memory chip”. The motivation would have been to ensure adherence to data destruction policies for ensuring inaccessibility of customer data on mobile electronic device undergoing recycling/decommissioning.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLAYTON R WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)270-3801. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00am - 6:00pm.
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, Nicholas Taylor can be reached on 571-272-3889. 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.
/CLAYTON R WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443