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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of group I in the reply filed on 11/12/25 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the groups are not “distinct” and do share the same “core inventive concept”. This is not found persuasive because it does not address the basis for restriction (eg the many physical elements which are absent from group I). Applicant appears to be arguing against a PCT/371-style practice of Restriction whereas this Restriction relied up on US-style practice.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (ie mathematical concept and mental process) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) obtaining, generating, and outputting ageing information. These steps could easily be accomplished manually by an operator simply observing gauges and/or looking up values in a chart. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the ageing step of claim 1 does not require or use any of the ageing information previously determined. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the ageing step appears to simply be a conventional and well known method for ageing meat which does not even require or use the previously obtained, generated, and output ageing information.
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.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “A control method of a refrigerator” in the preamble. However, the body of the claim fails to positively recite the refrigerator. It is not clear if the steps of obtaining, generating, and outputting information are conducted by the refrigerator, or by some other device, or simply done manually. The steps performed in the dependent claims also do not specify what element (eg the refrigerator) is perfoming them. It is not clear whether the output ageing information is actually the preset temperature and humidity to be used during the ageing step, or whether the ageing step uses conventional settings.
Claim 1 recites “an ageing level for each ageing period’. It is not clear if plural ageing periods are required, or not.
Claim 1 recites steps for obtaining, generating, and outputting ageing information, followed by “ageing the meat product at a set temperature and a set humidity”. It is not clear if the ageing step uses the information from the previous steps, or not. It is not clear if the ageing step is simply a conventional and well known step for ageing meat, or not.
Claim 13 recites “a vacuum pump” twice. It is not clear these are the same vacuum pump, or not.
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 1-9, 11-12, 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al [WO 2022/203160A1] in view of Clemens [EP 2463815A1].
Kang et al teach a meat ageing system (title) comprising a meat ageing device in communication with a server (Figure 1, #10, 20), the ageing device being a refrigerator with an ageing chamber (Figure 2), obtaining identification information and part information of a meat product (paragraph 0036-0037), generating ageing information in real-time (paragraph 0068-0070), a control unit which determines the current maturity, or ageing level, of the meat product based upon the obtained part information (paragraph 0072-0075), the controller adjusting the ageing parameters such as temperature and humidity to achieve the desired maturity level during an ageing period (paragraph 0072, 0076, 0135), a display for outputting information (paragraph 0071), a server control unit which generates meat ageing information using deep learning techniques and/or machine learning techniques (paragraph 0092), the stored meat information om the server including meat type, color, weight, size, recipe information, and/or delivery time (paragraph 0094), the server including various portable electronic communication devices (paragraph 0097), the ageing device using either dry ageing or wet ageing (paragraph 0113), the recipe information including customized cooking methods (paragraph 0118), receiving delivery date information, or target date information, from the server (paragraph 0094, 0120), controlling the fan speed and ventilation during ageing (paragraph 0140), an ageing completion notification (paragraph 0077), and ageing at a high temperature followed by storing at a low temperature (paragraph 0116).
Kang et al do not explicitly recite obtaining slaughter date information (claim 1), requesting and receiving slaughter date information from the server (claim 2).
Clemens teaches a method for processing meat by obtaining the slaughter date information based on an identification information (abstract; Figure 3), as well as a sever providing the slaughter information (page 2, line 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the slaughter date information and server function into the invention of Kang et al, in view of Clemens, since both are directed to methods of processing meat products, since Kang et al already included requesting and receiving identification information from a server but simply did not mention slaughter date in particular, since meat processing systems commonly included obtaining the slaughter date information based on an identification information (abstract; Figure 3) as well as a sever providing the slaughter information (page 2, line 20) as shown by Clemens, since slaughter date information would be important in meat ageing operations by informing the user of the origins and age of the meat, since the amount time after slaughter was known to affect the ageing process due to the release enzymes and autolysis after death of an animal, and since providing slaughter date information to the system of Kang et al, in view of Clemens, would have enabled more accurate and process control over the ageing process and conditions.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al, in view of Clemens, as applied above, and further in view of Kim et al [US 2020/0003482A1].
Kang et al and Clemens teach the above mentioned concepts. Kang et al do not explicitly recite transmitting information to the cooking appliance. Kim et al teach a kitchen wherein a refrigerator is in communication with cooking devices (Figure 7, #100, 500, 600). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the claimed cooking appliance communication into the invention of Kang et al, in view of Kim et al, since both are directed to food preparation systems, since Kang et al already included the recipe information including customized cooking methods (paragraph 0118), since refrigerators and cooking appliances were commonly in communication (Figure 7) as shown by Kim et al, and since communication between the various appliances would have enabled more accurate and precise control over meat quality.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al, in view of Clemens, as applied above, and further in view of Hsu [US 2018/0249723A1].
Kang et al and Clemens teach the above mentioned concepts. Kang et al do not explicitly recite a vacuum box to be used during wet ageing (claim 13). Hsu teaches a method for ageing meat by use of a vacuum box with a gas outlet (Figure 5, #21). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the claimed vacuum box features into the invention of Kang et al, in view of Hsu, since both are directed to meat ageing systems, since Kang et al already included wet and dry ageing, since wet ageing was commonly conducted by using a vacuum box as shown by Hsu, and since plural vacuum boxes would have enabled different meat products to be aged simultaneously in the system of Kang et al.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DREW E BECKER whose telephone number is (571)272-1396. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm Monday-Friday.
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, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at 571-270-3475. 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.
/DREW E BECKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792