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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Republic of Korea on 12/18/2020. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the English translation of KR10-2020-0178205 application.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of group I, claims 1-14 in the reply filed on 05/04/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claim 15 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-15 are objected to because of the following informalities: the status of the claims are not updated as original or withdrawn. MPEP 714 sets forth “In the claim listing, the status of every claim must be indicated after its claim number by using one of the following identifiers in a parenthetical expression: (Original), (Currently amended), (Canceled), (Withdrawn), (Previously presented), (New), and (Not entered).”
Claim 1 recites the limitation "in filter" in line 13. It should be – in the filter.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
water supplying unit in claim 1, interpreted as pipe as described in paragraph [ 63] of the original disclosure “the water supplying unit 30 includes a water supplying pipe 32 “, and equivalents thereof
input unit in claims 9, 10, interpreted as buttons or keys or touchscreen as described in paragraph [129-130] of the original disclosure, and equivalents thereof
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5-6, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas, US 20200093320 (hereafter Thomas), and further in view of Watanabe, US 20170208986 (hereafter Watanabe).
Regarding claim 1, A refrigerator (Fig. 1) comprising:
a main body including a storage compartment; (Fig. 2)
a door to open and close the storage compartment; (Fig. 2) and
a beverage provider (cold brewed coffee system 200) arrangeable with respect to the main body or the door, (Fig. 2)
the beverage provider comprising:
a water supplying unit; ( inlet supply conduit 226)
a storage to store water supplied by the water supplying unit; (coffee reservoir 214)
a filter, arrangeable inside the storage, (Paragraph [32] teaches “Coffee materials may include, for example, coffee grounds and a filter. In FIG. 5, coffee materials 206 are shown loaded into coffee reservoir 214”)
to accommodate beverage powder so that while the filter is arranged inside the storage, ingredients from the beverage powder accommodated in filter are leached into the water stored in the storage; (Paragraph [41] teaches “When water is mixed with the coffee grounds of the coffee materials 206 (FIG. 7), the coffee grounds steep in the water and flavor from the coffee grounds is extracted.”)
a sensor to obtain information related to a concentration of a beverage produced to contain the ingredients of the beverage powder in the water; (Thomas is silent about this.
Watanabe teaches “a density meter for measuring the solid content concentration of the liquid extract provided in the flow path” in abstract. The density meter corresponds to sensor.)
and a processor configured to identify the concentration of the beverage based on the obtained information, ( Thomas is silent about this.
Watanabe teaches “a solid content calculation unit for calculating the solid content included in the liquid extract that flowed through the flow path based on the measured flow rate and solid content concentration,” in abstract.)
and control the water supplying unit to supply the water in an amount which is adjusted based on the identified concentration. (Thomas is silent about this.
Paragraph [21] in Watanabe teaches “a solid content calculation unit 301 for calculating the solid content included in the liquid extract that flowed through the flow path 11 based on measured flow rate and solid content concentration, and a liquid transfer controller 302 for controlling the transfer of the liquid extract from the extractor 1 to the liquid extract tank 2 based on the calculated solid content.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the sensor, calculation unit, and controller as taught in Watanabe to the refrigerator in Thomas. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “supply of processing liquid to the extractor may be stopped based on the calculated solid content. In addition, the flow path of the liquid extract may be cut off based on the calculated solid content. Alternately, supply of the processing liquid to the extractor may be stopped based on the calculated solid content, then the flow path of the liquid extract may be cut off” as taught in paragraph [6] in Watanabe.
Regarding claim 5,
The refrigerator of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to identify the concentration of the beverage based on a preparation time of the beverage exceeding a predetermined reference period of time. (The claim is interpreted as the beverage is prepared for a predetermined period of time. Thomas teaches in paragraph [42] “For instance, after steeping for a predetermined time, cold brewed coffee 208 slowly drips from coffee reservoir 214 into coffee container 202 via slow drip passage 250”.)
Regarding claim 6,
The refrigerator of claim 5, wherein the processor is configured to control the water supplying unit to supply the water to the storage, based on the concentration of the beverage identified being higher than a concentration set by a user. ( Thomas is silent about this.
Paragraph [21] in Watanabe teaches “a solid content calculation unit 301 for calculating the solid content included in the liquid extract that flowed through the flow path 11 based on measured flow rate and solid content concentration, and a liquid transfer controller 302 for controlling the transfer of the liquid extract from the extractor 1 to the liquid extract tank 2 based on the calculated solid content.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the sensor, calculation unit, and controller as taught in Watanabe to the refrigerator in Thomas. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “supply of processing liquid to the extractor may be stopped based on the calculated solid content. In addition, the flow path of the liquid extract may be cut off based on the calculated solid content. Alternately, supply of the processing liquid to the extractor may be stopped based on the calculated solid content, then the flow path of the liquid extract may be cut off” as taught in paragraph [6] in Watanabe.
Regarding claim 9,
The refrigerator of claim 1, further comprising: an input unit to receive an input of a user, wherein the processor is configured to control the water supplying unit to supply the water in the amount which is adjusted based on a water supply amount or concentration of the beverage that is input through the input unit. (Thomas teaches in paragraph [6] “The controller is configured to: receive one or more signals indicating that a user input has been provided to commence a cold brewing process utilizing the cold brewed coffee system; control the inlet valve to move to the open position so that water flows flow from the water supply to the water reservoir; receive, from the water level sensing system, one or more signals indicating whether water within the water reservoir has reached a predetermined water level; and control the inlet valve to move to the closed position if water within the water reservoir has reached the predetermined water level, and wherein water flows from the water reservoir to the coffee reservoir through the drip passage and mixes with the coffee materials to produce cold brewed coffee.”)
Claim(s) 2, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas, Watanabe as applied to claim1 above, and further in view of Boone et al., US 20180168385 (hereafter Boone).
Regarding claim 2, The refrigerator of claim 1, wherein the sensor is among a sensor unit which includes a contact or non-contact concentration sensor to detect the concentration of the beverage based on electrical conductivity. (Primary combination of references is silent about this.
Boone teaches “analyte sensor 114 can be configured in the interior of the device 110, where fluid is contained, which can detect the concentration of the analyte in the device 110. Examples of the sensors 114 can include electrochemical sensors (e.g., amperometric, potentiometric, conductimetric, etc.), optical sensors, pH sensors, or other class of sensors” in paragraph [83].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the sensor based on electrical conductivity as taught in Boone to the refrigerator in Thomas. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “The analyte sensor 114 transduces a detected attribute (e.g., electrochemical reaction with a detecting region of an electrochemical sensor, an optical response to an optical probe signal of an optical sensor, or other) to a transduction signal, which includes an electrical signal that can be amplified and/or digitized for processing by the data processing unit 118” as taught in paragraph [83] in Boone.
Regarding claim 14,
The refrigerator of claim 1, further comprising.. wherein the beverage powder comprises coffee powder, and (abstract in Thomas teaches coffee materials.)
… a communicator to communicate with a server, (Primary combination of references is silent about this.
Boone teaches a beverage brewing system comprising intelligent beverage management system wherein “The intelligent beverage management system includes one or more computers in communication with other computers and devices in a network, such as over the Internet, referred to as a “cloud-based data processing system” or “cloud system”. The one or more computers are also referred to as cloud computer(s) or server(s)” as taught in paragraph [71].)
the processor is configured to identify a kind of the coffee powder which is fed into the filter, ( Primary combination of references is silent about this.
Paragraph [132] in Boone teaches “The method 510 includes a process 511 to detect a beverage constituent of a beverage using a sensor of a beverage device.”)
receive information about a water supply amount or leaching time corresponding to the kind of the coffee powder identified from the server, and control cold brew coffee to be prepared based on the received information. (Primary combination of references is silent about this.
Paragraph [76] in Boone teaches “the app may provide a brewing procedure based on the type of beverage to be brewed, e.g., such as a specific type of tea like chamomile tea versus black tea, or type of coffee.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add server and processor as taught in Boon to the refrigerator in Thomas. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “The intelligent beverage management system includes a cloud-based data processing system in communication with the mobile device and/or portable brewing device to receive, process and/or store data associated with brewing of the beverage and data associated with the monitoring of consumption of the beverage and/or certain beverage constituents” as taught in abstract in Boone.
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas, Watanabe as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Boone et al., US 20180168385 (hereafter Boone).
Regarding claim 7,
The refrigerator of claim 5, wherein the processor is configured to output a message informing that preparation of the beverage is complete, based on the concentration of the beverage identified to reach a concentration set by a user. (Primary combination of references is silent about this.
Boone teaches “FIG. 2G shows the display screen 244 depicting the progress of the portable brewing device 110 completing the brewing protocol.” Paragraph [74] teaches that concentration is a regulated brewing parameter. It is implied that the brewing protocol is programmed to achieve a certain concentration and the protocol is complete when that concentration is reached.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the output message in the brewing protocol as taught in Boone to the refrigerator in Thomas. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “the portable brewing device can control for a user's ideal brewing parameters and ideal drinking conditions to enable the user to have the “perfect cup” where and when upon desire, e.g., allowing the user to prepare and consume tea, coffee, and other hot or cold brewed beverages while on the go” as taught in paragraph [75] in Boone.
Regarding claim 8,
The refrigerator of claim 5, wherein the processor is configured to output a message that an additional leaching time is required, based on the concentration of the beverage identified being lower than a concentration set by a user. (The claim is interpreted as the processor displays progress during brewing.
Primary combination of references is silent about this.
Boone teaches in paragraph [105] “FIG. 2E shows the display screen 242 depicting the progress of the portable brewing device 110 brewing the brewing material temperature associated with the certain beverage (e.g., dark French roast coffee), which is settable by the user via the app. The display screen 242 includes a timer and/or graphic 245E showing the progress associated with the brewing operation.” Paragraph [74] teaches that concentration is a regulated brewing parameter. It is implied that the brewing protocol is programmed to achieve a certain concentration and the protocol is complete when that concentration is reached.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the output message in the brewing protocol as taught in Boone to the refrigerator in Thomas. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “the portable brewing device can control for a user's ideal brewing parameters and ideal drinking conditions to enable the user to have the “perfect cup” where and when upon desire, e.g., allowing the user to prepare and consume tea, coffee, and other hot or cold brewed beverages while on the go” as taught in paragraph [75] in Boone.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas, Watanabe as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Park et al., US 20200315397 (hereafter Park).
The refrigerator of claim 1, wherein the sensor is among a sensor unit which includes a weight sensor under the storage, and (Primary combination of references is silent about this.
Park teaches weight sensor 264 in paragraph [42].)
the processor is configured to identify weight of the beverage powder accommodated in the filter based on a detection result of the weight sensor, and identify the concentration of the beverage based on the identified weight of the beverage powder and the amount of the water supplied to the storage. ( paragraph [42] in Park teaches “brewing assembly 200 may further include a weight sensor 264 which is generally configured or detecting the weight of or quantity of beverage contents 224 deposited in canisters 222 in order to determine the proper amount of water 144 which should be supplied from upper reservoir 210.” It is implied that amount of water is determined from amount of beverage content and concentration of the beverage.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the weight sensor and controller as taught in Park to the refrigerator in Thomas. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “the quality of brewed beverage 226 may be improved by maintaining a desired ratio of water 144 to beverage contents 224” as taught in paragraph [38] in Park.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas, Watanabe as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Park et al., US 20180187964 (hereafter Park-964).
The refrigerator of claim 1, wherein the sensor is among a sensor unit which includes a mounting sensor to detect whether the storage is attached or detected with respect to the beverage provider, and (Primary combination of references is silent about this.
Park-964 teaches sensor 118 “which checks whether the water tank 130 is properly mounted in the mounting portion 111a of the case body 111” in paragraph [113].)
the processor is configured to count a beverage preparation time from a point in time when the mounting sensor detects that the storage is attached or detected with respect to the beverage provider. (Primary combination of references is silent about this.
Park-964 teaches in paragraphs [138-139] “when it is sensed that the water tank 130 is mounted in the proper position, the controller 140 may supply water to the water tank 130 by controlling the water tank valve 121. In addition, the controller 140 may prevent more water than that of the full level amount from being supplied to the water tank 130 by controlling the water tank valve 121 on the basis of a prestored maximum amount of time of water supply to the water tank 130.” )
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the water tank sensor and prestored amount of time as taught in Park-964 to the refrigerator in Thomas. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order “to provide a refrigerator capable of automatically supplying a certain amount of water to a water tank provided in a storage compartment and a method of controlling the refrigerator” as taught in paragraph [7] in Park-964.
Claim(s) 10, 11, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas, Watanabe as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cur et al., US 20120104021 (hereafter Cur).
Regarding claim 10,
The refrigerator of claim 1, further comprising an input unit to allow a selection to operate the beverage provider in either a water purification mode to provide purified water or a beverage mode to provide the beverage. ( Primary combination of references is silent about this.
Cur teaches “A valve could be placed before the filter to allow the circuit to operate in a bypass mode or in a flow through mode. Operation of the valve between the flow through and bypass mode could be controlled by instruction from the control panel or user interface 24 of dispenser 14” in paragraph [32].)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the valve and control as taught in Cur to the refrigerator in Thomas. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order “to provide a liquid conditioning circuit outputting varying levels and types of conditioned liquid streams” as taught in paragraph [7] in Cur.
Regarding claim 11,
The refrigerator of claim 10, wherein the processor is configured to: identify a water level of the water in the storage through the sensor (Paragraph [7] in Thomas teaches “the cold brewed coffee system includes a water level sensing system operable to detect when water within the reservoir has reached a predetermined water level.”
and control the water supplying unit to maintain the water in the storage at a predetermined water level based on a result of the water level identified. (Paragraph [25] in Thomas teaches “When water within water reservoir 212 has reached a predetermined water level (e.g., as determined by a water level sensing system), controller 164 may control inlet valve 228 to move to the closed position.”)
… in the water purification mode, (However, Primary combination of references is silent about this.
Cur teaches “A valve could be placed before the filter to allow the circuit to operate in a bypass mode or in a flow through mode. Operation of the valve between the flow through and bypass mode could be controlled by instruction from the control panel or user interface 24 of dispenser 14” in paragraph [32].)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the valve and control as taught in Cur to the refrigerator in Thomas. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order “to provide a liquid conditioning circuit outputting varying levels and types of conditioned liquid streams” as taught in paragraph [7] in Cur.
Regarding claim 13,
The refrigerator of claim 10, wherein the input unit further receives an input of a user to select a water supply amount or concentration of a beverage in the beverage mode, and the processor is configured to control the water supplying unit to supply the water in the amount which is adjusted based on the selected water supply amount or concentration, to the storage. (Thomas teaches in paragraph [6] “The controller is configured to: receive one or more signals indicating that a user input has been provided to commence a cold brewing process utilizing the cold brewed coffee system; control the inlet valve to move to the open position so that water flows flow from the water supply to the water reservoir; receive, from the water level sensing system, one or more signals indicating whether water within the water reservoir has reached a predetermined water level; and control the inlet valve to move to the closed position if water within the water reservoir has reached the predetermined water level, and wherein water flows from the water reservoir to the coffee reservoir through the drip passage and mixes with the coffee materials to produce cold brewed coffee.”)
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas, Watanabe, Cur as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Park-964.
The refrigerator of claim 10, wherein the processor is configured to: identify a water level of the water in the storage based on an input of a user to switch operation of the beverage provider from the water purification mode to the beverage mode, and perform control not to switch to the beverage mode based on the water level being identified as a predetermined level or higher. (The claim is interpreted as the controller will not start a new mode if water level in the tank is above a threshold value.
Park-964 teaches in paragraph [135] “the controller 140 compares the water level of the water tank 130 received from the water level sensor 113 with a full level amount, prestored, of the water tank 130. Here, when the water level of the water tank 130 is the full level amount or higher, the controller 140 may stop water from being supplied to the water tank 130 by controlling the water tank valve 121. Afterward, the controller 140 may not supply water to the water tank 130 unless the water tank 130 is separated from the water tank case 110 and is mounted again thereon.” Thus, it is implied that the controller does not start a new operation until the full water tank is emptied out.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the level sensor and controller as taught in Park-964 to the refrigerator in Thomas. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order “to provide a refrigerator capable of automatically supplying a certain amount of water to a water tank provided in a storage compartment and a method of controlling the refrigerator” as taught in paragraph [7] in Park-964.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FAHMIDA FERDOUSI whose telephone number is (303)297-4341. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 9:00AM-3:00PM; PST.
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, Steven Crabb can be reached at (571)270-5095. 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.
/FAHMIDA FERDOUSI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights