Amendments submitted 2/14/25 have been entered.
DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ammerman US 10,371,438 in view of Pas US 10,430,855.
In regard to claims 1 and 9, Ammerman teaches a household appliance for storing food and method of controlling illumination in a household appliance 10 comprising a lighting arrangement 32,34,36 configured to illuminate an interior of the household appliance, the method comprising receiving an instruction to highlight at least one section of the interior of the household appliance (fig 4B,4C,5); and controlling said lighting arrangement to highlight said at least one section of the interior, thereby enabling a dual functionality for the lighting arrangement to selectively light up the interior of the household appliance (referenced as “normal condition”) and to highlight (referenced as a “zone” being brighter or different color) said at least one section of the interior (see col. 2 line 41-col. 6 line 67) and a lighting arrangement including a strip of individual sources (LEDSs) that span each of the plurality of sections of the interior (Note: LEDs extend along the sides of display), and wherein the strip extends continuously along a height of the household appliance adjacent an opening of the household appliance (LED groups 32,34,36), but does not specifically teach an instruction to highlight at least one section of the interior including a specific beverage to be highlighted, and wherein the lighting arrangement is configured to highlight the specific beverage according to the instruction.
Pas teaches instructions to highlight at least one section of an interior of a cooler including a specific product/beverage to be highlighted, and wherein the lighting arrangement is capable of highlighting a specific beverage according to the instruction (note: highlighting available beverage options are shown in fig. 2 and also further examples are provided in figs. 10-12).
Beverage coolers and illumination means are known in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide instructions to highlight a specific product/beverage in Ammerman such as taught by Pas. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to highlight a specific beverage in order to provide indication of its location for providing convenience and increased marketability.
In regard to claims 2 and 10, Ammerman and Pas teach a household appliance and method including receiving of an instruction to highlight at least one section of the interior comprising receiving an instruction to highlight a particular retainer storing one or more food items; and the controlling of said lighting arrangement further comprising: controlling said lighting arrangement to highlight the particular retainer (Ammerman shelves 23, drawers 27 and see Pas fig. 2 and 10).
In regard to claims 3 and 11, Ammerman teaches an appliance and a method of receiving an instruction to highlight at least one section of the interior comprising: receiving an instruction to visually differentiate between at least two sections of the interior; and the controlling of said lighting arrangement comprising: controlling said lighting arrangement to illuminate one of the at least two sections with light of a first colour and to illuminate another of the at least two sections with light of a second colour (see col. 4 lines 55-63, col. 6 lines 3-26) .
In regard to claims 4 and 12, Ammerman and Pas teach an appliance and a method of controlling of said lighting arrangement comprising controlling said lighting arrangement to highlight said at least a section of the interior by turning individual light sources of the lighting arrangement on and off, by changing the colour of the light emitted by the lighting arrangement, or by pulsating the emitted light with a certain frequency (Ammerman, col. 4 lines 60-63-alters color, Pas col. 3 line 24-col.5 line 41).
In regard to claims 5 and 13, Ammerman teaches an appliance and a method with instructions being received over a wireless communication interface of the household appliance col. 4 line 29-col. 5 line 21).
In regard to claims 6 and 14, Ammerman teaches an appliance and a method with instructions being received via a control panel (controller 100) of the household appliance via which a user enters the instructions (via input 40 or 50).
In regard to claims 7 and 8, Ammerman and Pas teach a computer program comprising computer-executable instructions for causing a household appliance to perform steps recited in claim 1 when the computer-executable instructions are executed on a processing unit included in the household appliance and a computer program product comprising a computer readable medium, the computer readable medium having the computer program according to claim 7 (Ammerman fig. 2 and col. 4 line 65-col. 5 line 48, Pas col. 3 line 24-col.5 line 41).
Claim(s) 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ammerman and Pas and alternatively in view of Kendall US 2015/002300.
In regard to claim 15, Ammerman teaches addressable sources and controlling groups of light sources in different zones which are arranged in a strip along a height of an appliance (note: along vertical sides of each zone along height of frig), but does not specifically teach the light sources being individually activated or individually addressable light sources. However, Pas teaches light sources being individually activated or individually addressable light sources (in particular figs 10-12, but also teaches “”alter or change the light characteristic of at least a portion of the light source associated with the desired product”-col. 6 lines 27-29).
Kendall teaches control circuitry for addressing individual light sources to be activated [0065-0066] for use in a refrigerator.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to make the sources in Ammerman’s refrigerator individually activated/ addressable such as taught by Pas/Kendall. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make sources individually addressable in order to selectively tailor the output to provide an enhanced visual effect and increased indication of the highlighted area thus enhancing aesthetic appeal. Better indication would also provide a quicker awareness of the target area which could further reduce the time a user must hold the door open and therefore also increase efficiently of the device.
Claim(s) 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ammerman and Pas and alternatively in view of Eichman US 2009/0178427.
Ammerman and Pas teach the invention described above, including Pas’s lighting of specific products/beverages (fig. 2 and 10-12), but lacks the explicit teaching of the beverage being a bottle of wine.
The examiner takes official notice that providing refrigeration for beverages such as wine is well known in the art and would have flown naturally to one of ordinary skill. It is noted that Pas shows illuminating bottled beverages and wine is a bottled beverage which is considered capable of use with Ammerman/Pas cooler design. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to illuminate a wine bottle for use with Ammerman. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to provide instructions to illuminate a wine bottle in older to increase marketability by enhancing user appeal.
For further reference, Eichman is provided for a teaching of illuminating wine bottles in a cooler. Reasons to combine are the same as stated above.
Response to Arguments
The applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive.
The applicant is first reminded that claims in a pending application should be given their broadest reasonable interpretation. In re Pearson, 181 USPQ 641 (CCPA 1974). See also In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 70 USPQ2d. 1827 (Fed. Cir. May 13, 2004). MPEP § 2111.01.
PNG
media_image1.png
406
330
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
428
325
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
413
353
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Applicant argues that Ammerman’s light strip does not extend continuously along a height of the household appliance. However, as seen in the figures groups of LEDS 32, 34, and 36 provide for a strip of LEDs that extend continuously along a height of the appliance. It is also noted that while not shown illuminated together, the disclosure provides for multiple zone selection (col. 4 lines 25-28 and col 5 lines 51-54). Therefore, the applicant’s amendments do not overcome the teachings of Ammerman.
Conclusion
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 JULIE A BANNAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7131. The examiner can normally be reached usually M,W,H between 8-5 with flexing.
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, MAJEED AZIZ can be reached at (571) 270-5046. 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.
/JULIE A BANNAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights