DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the amendment filed on August 3rd 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 9-12, filed 8/3/26, with respect to the 112 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112 rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 12-13, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-7 under 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of 103 and Sugahara et al. US 2005/0071184 A1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cummings et al. US 2024/0420096 A1 in view of Sugahara et al. US 2005/0071184 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Cummings discloses a computer implemented method for facilitating circularity associated with a [product] (computer system facilitates the delivery and pickup of items for recycling– abstract, Fig. 1A, paragraph 47) comprising:
Initiating, through an executable end-of-life application executing on a communications device, a communication session with an application server (user uses electronic device to perform recycling – paragraphs 8, 44-47 and Fig. 1; user communications with server – Fig. 1A, paragraph 47);
receiving, by the application server, a request from a device owner or device operator associated with the end-of-life … device (user communicates with server to being device pickup/drop off process for recycling – Fig. 2, paragraphs 46-68);
accessing, by the application server, one or more databases and obtaining information associated with the end-of-life … device from a plurality of entities communicatively coupled to the application server (lookup information in database related to recycling devices – paragraphs 46, 48 and Fig. 1 item 106; coordinate with a plurality of entities including merchants, manufacturers, carriers, etc. – paragraph 47),
determining, by the application server based on the obtained information, whether an actionable circularity solution exists for the end-of-life … device (determine whether recycling can be performed – paragraphs 8-9, 55-56, Fig. 2);
when the actionable circularity solution exists, transmitting information associated with the actionable circularity solution to the communications device for presentation to the device owner or device operator (present information on user device to participate in recycling solution – paragraphs 76, 81, Figs. 2-3);
receiving, by the application server, a selection responsive to the transmitted information (user interface prompts users – paragraph 76; coordinate pickup location involves user selecting pickup/drop off and location information – see Figs. 1-2, paragraphs 47, 49, 67 and 87); and
facilitating, through the application server, an exchange of the end-of-life … or one or more components thereof with at least one of the plurality of entities communicatively coupled to the application server based on the received selection (server facilitates the actual recycling of items/products with the recycling entities – Fig. 1, paragraphs 47, 86-87).
Cummings teaches a broad range of items/products but does not explicitly disclose an end-of-life electronic device. However, this is taught by Sugahara as a method for recycling personal computer devices (abstract, Fig. 1, paragraphs 2, 5-7). Sugahara explicitly discloses an electronic device (i.e. personal computer) discarding system (abstract, Fig. 1) that includes recycling electronic devices in response to a user request (paragraph 25, Fig. 2). Sugahara also discloses a server in communication with a database for determining whether a recycling solution exists and communicating with the user (see Figs. 1-5 and paragraph 23).
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 recycling system of Cummings to allow a user to recycle electronic devices as taught by Sugahara. Sugahara teaches that recycling is necessary prevent harmful effects (paragraph 4).
Regarding claim 2, Cummings discloses where the plurality of entities comprises one or more … recycling entities, salvage entities, or combinations thereof (recycling center – abstract, Figs. 1, 4; paragraph 4).
Regarding claim 3, Cummings discloses the information obtained from the plurality of entities comprises one or more of pricing information, availability information, transportation information … recycling information (provide information about products/items including price and recycling information – Figs. 2-3, paragraphs 60 and 77-81).
Regarding claim 4, Cummings discloses determining whether at least one of the plurality of entities is available to receive the end-of-life electronic device or one or more components thereof (user provides information to coordinate delivery/pickup of recycling – see paragraphs 10, 29, 47 and 77; this includes determining a carrier / entity to receive the recycling components).
Regarding claim 5, Cummings discloses transmitting one or more actionable circularity solutions to the communications device (communicate with user to coordinate pickup of recycling materials – Fig. 1, paragraph 47; also see paragraphs 87-90 which discuss communicating recycling information to a user).
Regarding claim 6, Cummings discloses wherein the received selection identifies one of the plurality of entities for completing the exchange (identify carrier or pickup location – paragraphs 87-88; e.g. when a user selects “curbside pickup”, the system has received a selection identifier of a specific entity where recycling components will be collected).
Regarding claim 7, Cummings discloses facilitating the exchange further comprises electronically communicating with the identified entity through the application server (server may notify carrier – Fig. 2, paragraph 87).
Regarding claim 8, Cummings discloses facilitating the exchange further comprises arranging transportation of the end-of-life [items/product] (coordinate pickup/drop off of items to be recycled– Figs. 1-4, paragraphs 47, 87-90). Cummings does not explicitly disclose the end-of-life electronic device but this is taught by Sugahara as explained above, the motivation to combine is the same.
Regarding claim 9, Cummings discloses scheduling pickup of the [product/item] for recycling (pickup device/recycling – Fig. 1, paragraphs 47, 69). Cummings does not explicitly disclose the end-of-life electronic device but this is taught by Sugahara as explained above, the motivation to combine is the same.
Regarding claim 10, Cummings discloses identifying a pickup location and a destination location (location information – paragraphs 49, 67, Fig. 1; destination locations – paragraph 95, Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 11, Cummings discloses transferring ownership of the [product/item] (by definition, a user participating in a recycling program transfers ownership of the recycled products because they are legally abandoning the property – see paragraphs 7-9). Cummings does not explicitly disclose the end-of-life electronic device but this is taught by Sugahara as explained above, the motivation to combine is the same.
Regarding claim 12, Cummings discloses the exchange comprises transferring ownership of one or more components removed from the [product/item] (drop off materials removed from the product packaging for recycling – Figs. 1, 4, paragraph 88; as explained above, when dropping off products/items or materials for recycling, ownership is transferred because the items are abandon). Sugahara discloses the end-of-life electronic device as discussed above. Sugahara also teaches components of the end-of-life electronic device (see paragraph 36, Fig. 4). The motivation to combine is the same.
Regarding claim 13, Cummings does not explicitly disclose the end-of-life electronic device comprises a laptop computer, … desktop computer, … or other wearable electronic device but this is taught by Sugahara (personal computer such as a desktop, a notebook – see paragraph 29). The motivation to combine is the same.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bostick et al. US 2017/0344959 A1 discloses a system and method for recycling electronic waste, including presenting options to a user, receiving a user selection, and recycling in response to user requests and transportation to electronic waste collection agencies based on location (abstract, Figs. 1-2, paragraphs 15-18).
Barr et al. US 2024/0132282 A1 discloses a computer system to arrange collection of recycling based on user interaction and location, and transporting recycling from user to a recycling center (abstract, paragraph 145, Fig. 1).
Wan et al. US 2014/0114868 A1 discloses a recycling collection system that considers location (abstract, Fig. 1) and uses a user computer and server (paragraph 5, Fig. 4).
Zavesky et al. US 2023/0048270 A1 discloses that a drone can be recruited to come to a consumer and move recycle objects (paragraph 35).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON D RECEK whose telephone number is (571)270-1975. The examiner can normally be reached Flex M-F 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, Umar Cheema can be reached at 571-270-3037. 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.
/JASON D RECEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2458
Prosecution Insights