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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/09/2025, 09/24/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 2-9, 11-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hunt et al. 2016/0098688.
Regarding claim 2, Hunt discloses a system (Kiosk system) for evaluating and purchasing electronic devices, the system comprising: a kiosk (kiosk 100) comprising: one or more first cameras (cameras 116 a-c) having a first field of view including an environment external to the kiosk [021]; an internal inspection area (inspection area 108) configured to receive an electronic device from a user for electrical and/or visual evaluation [024-25] [032]; and one or more second cameras (internal cameras 314) having a second field of view including at least a portion of the internal inspection area; and one or more processors operably associated with the kiosk and configured to obtain [024-25], via the one or more first cameras, a first image of an ID of a user [021] [027]; obtain, via the one or more first cameras, a second image of the user [027]; provide verification of an identity of the user based at least partially on a comparison of the first image and the second image [027]; obtain, via the one or more second cameras, one or more third images of the electronic device while the electronic device is positioned within the internal inspection area [024-025] [032]; determine a compensation value for the electronic device based at least partially on an evaluation of the one or more third images [026-27]; and offer to purchase the electronic device for the compensation value [019] [026-27].
Regarding claim 3, Hunt discloses all of the limitations of claim 2. Hunt further discloses a display screen (display 104) operably coupled to the one or more processors, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the display screen to display the first image and/or the second image to a remote evaluator for manual comparison [025-26] [31] [FIG 1].
Regarding claim 4, Hunt discloses all of the limitations of claim 2. Hunt further discloses the one or more processors are one or more first processors located remotely from the kiosk, the kiosk further comprises one or more second processors operably coupled to the one or more first cameras and the one or more second cameras, and the one or more first processors are configured to-- obtain the first image and the second image from the one or more second processors, and provide the verification of the identity to the one or more second processors [027].
Regarding claim 5, Hunt discloses all of the limitations of claim 2. Hunt further discloses the first image of the ID of the user includes an image of a driver's license of the user [027].
Regarding claim 6, Hunt discloses all of the limitations of claim 2. Hunt further discloses the first image of the ID includes an image of a picture of the user, and wherein the verification of the identity of the user is based at least partially on a comparison of the picture and the second image [027].
Regarding claim 7, Hunt discloses all of the limitations of claim 2. Hunt further discloses the kiosk further includes a housing, and wherein the one or more first cameras and the one or more second cameras are positioned within the housing [FIG 1].
Regarding claim 8, Hunt discloses all of the limitations of claim 2. Hunt further discloses the one or more processors include: one or more first processors positioned remotely from the kiosk and configured to obtain the first image and the second image and verify the identity of the user; one or more second processors positioned remotely from the kiosk and configured to obtain the one or more third images and determine the compensation value; and one or more third processors of the kiosk configured to cause a display screen of the kiosk to display the offer to purchase the electronic device [030] [068].
Regarding claim 9, Hunt discloses all of the limitations of claim 2. Hunt further discloses the evaluation of the one or more third images is performed by the one or more processors [024-26].
Regarding claim 11, Hunt discloses all of the limitations of claim 2. Hunt further discloses the electronic device is a mobile phone (mobile device 180) [019][ FIG 1].
Regarding claim 12, Hunt discloses all of the limitations of claim 2. Hunt further discloses the one or more first cameras include a primary first camera and a secondary first camera, the one or more processors are configured to obtain the first image via the primary first camera, and the one or more processors are configured to obtain the second image via the secondary first camera [021] [025] [027].
Regarding claim 13, Hunt discloses a method of evaluating and purchasing electronic devices, the method comprising: obtaining, via one or more first cameras of a kiosk, a first image of an ID of a user, wherein the one or more first cameras have a field of view including an environment external to the kiosk; obtaining, via the one or more first cameras, a second image of the user; verifying, via one or more processors operably associated with the kiosk, an identity of the user based at least partially on a comparison of the first image and the second image; obtaining, via one or more second cameras of the kiosk, one or more third images of an electronic device while the electronic device is positioned within an internal inspection area of the kiosk; determining, via the one or more processors, a compensation value for the electronic device based at least partially on an evaluation of the one or more third images; and offering, via the one or more processors, to purchase the electronic device for the compensation value [019] [022-32] [FIG 1].
Regarding claim 14, Hunt discloses all of the limitations of claim 13. Hunt further discloses verifying the identity of the user includes displaying, via a display screen positioned remotely from the kiosk, the first image and/or the second image to a remote evaluator for the comparison [027].
Regarding claim 15, Hunt discloses all of the limitations of claim 13. Hunt further discloses the one or more processors are one or more first processors located remotely from the kiosk, the kiosk further comprises one or more second processors operably coupled to the one or more first cameras and/or the one or more second cameras, obtaining the first image and the second image includes obtaining the first image and the second image from the one or more second processors, and verifying the identity of the user includes providing verification of the identity to the one or more second processors [027].
Regarding claim 16, Hunt discloses all of the limitations of claim 13. Hunt further discloses the first image of the ID of the user includes an image of a driver's license of the user [027].
Regarding claim 17, Hunt discloses all of the limitations of claim 13. Hunt further discloses obtaining the first image of the ID includes obtaining an image of a picture of the user, and wherein verifying the identity of the user includes comparing the picture in the obtained image and the second image. [026] [067].
Regarding claim 18, Hunt discloses all of the limitations of claim 13. Hunt further discloses the one or more processors include: one or more first processors positioned remotely from the kiosk and configured to facilitate verifying the user's identity, one or more second processors positioned remotely from the kiosk and configured to determine the compensation value of the electronic device, and one or more third processors of the kiosk; obtaining the first image and the second image includes transmitting the first image and the second image from the one or more third processors to the one or more first processors for verification; obtaining the one or more third images includes transmitting the one or more third images from the one or more third processors to the one or more second processors for the evaluation; and offering to purchase the electronic device includes transmitting the compensation value from the one or more second processors to the one or more third processors and causing, via the one or more third processors, a display screen of the kiosk to display a purchase offer to the user [021] [026-27].
Regarding claim 19, Hunt discloses all of the limitations of claim 13. Hunt further discloses evaluating the one or more third images via the one or more processors to determine a physical condition of the electronic device, wherein the compensation value is based at least partially on the physical condition.
Regarding claim 20, Hunt discloses all of the limitations of claim 13. Hunt further discloses evaluating the one or more third images via the one or more processors to determine a make and/or a model of the electronic device, wherein the compensation value is based at least partially on the make and/or the model [023].
Regarding claim 21, Hunt discloses all of the limitations of claim 13. Hunt further discloses evaluating the one or more third images via the one or more processors to determine a make and/or a model of the electronic device, wherein the compensation value is based at least partially on the make and/or the model.
21. (New) The method of claim 13 wherein the electronic device is a mobile phone (019] [FIG 1].
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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunt et al. 2016/0098688.
Regarding claim 10, Hunt discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. While Hunt discloses a server to process the one or more third images, it fails to explicitly disclose the evaluation of the one or more third images is performed by a remote human operator. Hunt does disclose a human operator evaluating images of a user and their photo ID [027], therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to allow the operator to evaluate the images for a more accurate finding.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASIFA HABIB whose telephone number is (571)270-7032. The examiner can normally be reached 10-4:30pm.
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, Steve Paik can be reached at 571-272-2404. 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.
/ASIFA HABIB/Examiner, Art Unit 2876
/THIEN M LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876