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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 9-11, filed 8/14/25, with respect to the 112 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive except for claim 7. The 112 rejection of claims 1-6 and 8 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, pg. 11-12, regarding the 102 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant simply states the application claims priority to provisional application 62/771,033 which was filed on 11/24/18 (prior to the Cummings reference) and “discloses the core inventive concepts” now claimed. This is not persuasive. Applicant does not provide a single reference to the provisional to show support for the current claims. Applicant fails to mention the current application is a CIP (continuation in part) of intervening application 18/385646, which by definition means that new matter is presented in the pending application. Examiner has thoroughly reviewed the provisional application and does not agree with applicant that it “discloses the core inventive concepts”, let alone provides 112 support for the current claims. Examiner acknowledges the provisional application mentions “recycling” and using an app to create an exchange (pg. 9-10 of specification) but there are no details provided besides the general idea of using an app on an electronic device reduce e-waste. If anything, the provisional indicates that inventor was in possession of the idea of buying and selling used electronic devices (pg. 10, Fig. 5), but that is not what the current claims recite. Instead, the provisional is largely focused on a specific technique of manufacture for electronic devices in order to make them easier to recycle (pg. 2-4, Figs. 1-5). Therefore, examiner finds the provisional application relied on by applicant does not provide 112 support for the current claims and applicant is afforded the filing date of the application, 4/22/25 as the effective filing date of the claimed subject matter. Thus, Cummings is available as prior art under 35 USC 102.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 7 contains the trademark/trade name “Uber, Lyft, Doordash, Nextdoor”. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe a transport service and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cummings et al. US 2024/0420096 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Cummings discloses a method for end-of-life goods transport (delivery and pickup of items – Fig. 1A, paragraph 47) comprising:
at a communications device of an operator, wherein the communications device comprises a processor and a memory storing an end-of-life circularity transport application, executing, by the processor, the transport application to; establish Internet connectivity between the communications device and an application server (user uses electronic device to perform recycling – paragraphs 8, 44-47 and Fig. 1; server – Fig. 1A, paragraph 47);
transmit, to the application server, a transport request specifying at least one of a pick-up region or a drop-off region (coordinate pickup/transport includes location information – paragraph 47, 49),
at one or more processors, performing: determining, based on the received transport request, one or more candidate locations of interest within the specified pick-up region or drop-off region (user request to coordinate delivery/pickup – paragraphs 47, 77, this includes location or region – see paragraph 67; location can be a “buffer location” – paragraph 95, Fig. 6);
retrieving, from a memory, one or more historical locations previously associated with the user (database stores location information – paragraph 49; collect from location based on previous order – paragraph 87);
comparing the one or more candidate locations of interest with the retrieved historical locations (location may be, e.g. “user’s home”, thus it a previous location related to the user – see paragraphs 47, 67 and Fig. 1A); and
determining a likely pick-up or drop-off location based on the comparison (coordinating pickup of items from users based on location and historical orders, including location information – Fig. 1, paragraphs 47, 49 and 87).
Regarding claim 2, Cummings discloses in response to determining a likely pick-up or drop-off location, the communications device, by executing the transport application, drives a user interface to display a prompt asking the user whether the likely pick-up or drop-off location is a location acceptable for device pickup or drop-off (user interface prompts users – paragraph 76, profile is created/update with location information and user preferences – paragraph 49).
Regarding claim 3, Cummings discloses receiving, at the communications device, a user confirmation that the likely pick-up or drop-ff location displayed via the user interface is acceptable for device pick or drop-off (user interface prompts users – paragraph 76, profile is created/update with location information and user preferences – paragraph 49); in response to receiving the user confirmation, the computing device arranges the transport service for the user based on the confirmed pick-up or drop-off location (coordinate pickup based on location - Fig. 1, paragraphs 47, 49, 67 and 87).
Regarding claim 4, Cummings discloses receiving, at the communications device, a user input indicating that the likely pick-up or drop-off location displayed via the user interface is not acceptable; in response to the user input, the computing device determines a second likely pick-up or drop-off location based on the one or more candidate locations of interest and the one or more historical locations (the device provides a user interface for the user, this includes collecting profile, location and preference data – paragraphs 47, 49, 52; the data includes inputs specifying location information – paragraph 49, by providing location information, the user has also specified locations that are not the location the user would like to have the device picked up at or dropped off at; furthermore, a primary operation of the invention is to “coordinate” delivery/pickup or transport – see paragraphs 10, 47 and 77; coordinating necessarily implies working together to achieve a common action – thus by teaching coordinating the pickup of user items, Cummings discloses determining a correct location via user interaction).
Regarding claim 5, it is a device claim that corresponds to the method of claim 1. The corresponding limitations are rejected for the same reasons. Cummings also discloses a device comprising a display, memory and processor to implement the method (abstract, paragraphs 57, 125 and Figs. 1, 7).
Regarding claim 6, it corresponds to claim 2 and thus is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 7, Cummings does not explicitly disclose the service comprises one of an “Uber, Lyft, Doordash, Nextdoor” as these are indefinite based on the 112 rejection above. Cummings does disclose the service is one of taxis, limo, shared ride service (the system coordinate pickup of items from “users” – see paragraph 47, transporter delivers “objects” from “users” to recycling center – see paragraph 114; thus the service is at least a “shared ride service” under the broadest reasonable interpretation because the transport service is delivering objects from a plurality of users, and therefore the recycle items are “sharing” a ride; also see paragraphs 67-68 which disclose carriers are commercial transporters known in the market – this could potentially read on the claimed Trademark services, as they are “commercial transporters known in the market”).
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) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cummings in view of Zavesky et al. US 2023/0048270 A1.
Regarding claim 8, Cummings discloses the pickup service is an umanned vehicle configured for automated electronic device pick-up (use autonomously operated vehicles for delivery and pickup, see paragraph 69). Cummings does not explicitly disclose a “drone” but this is taught by Zavesky (paragraph 35). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cummings to use a drone as the UAV as taught by Zavesky. Zavesky teaches that a drone can be recruited to come to a consumer and move recycle objects (paragraph 35). This would relieve the user of the burden of moving the objects themselves.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sugahara et al. US 2005/0071184 A1 discloses an equipment discarding system (abstract, Fig. 1) that includes recycling electronic devices in response to a user request (paragraph 25, Fig. 2).
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).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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