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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13 and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 19 recites: “the output section outputs the proposal information on setting of a cooling device performing freezing or refrigerating inside the chamber”. Applicant is advised to change this to: “the output section outputs the proposal information based on setting of a cooling device performing freezing or refrigerating inside the chamber”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4 – 12, 19, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by TAKAHIRO et al. WO 2019/229838 (hereinafter TAKAHIRO).
Regarding claim 1, TAKAHIRO teaches: an information processing device comprising:
a prediction section predicting how a stored item cools in a chamber performing freezing or refrigerating ([0044] - - estimating heat capacity is predicting how an item cools); and
an output section outputting proposal information about placement of an item to be stored in the chamber based on how the stored item cools as predicted by the prediction section ([0045]-[0047] - - the result output unit 205 displays information indicating the storage area selected by the area selection unit 204; the area selection unit 204 based on estimated heat capacity).
Claim 20 is substantially similar to claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons and rationale as above.
Regarding claim 2, TAKAHIRO all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
TAKAHIRO further teaches: the prediction section predicts how a stored item cools in the chamber using a thermal time constant of an item to be stored in the chamber ([0036], [0037] - - maximum fluctuation and average fluctuation are thermal time constants showing how an item cools).
Regarding claim 4, TAKAHIRO all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
TAKAHIRO further teaches: the prediction section predicts how a stored item cools in the chamber further using target temperature information of an item to be stored in the chamber ([0042] - - upper limit temperature of the item is target temperature information).
Regarding claim 5, TAKAHIRO all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
TAKAHIRO further teaches: the prediction section predicts how a stored item cools in the chamber using a physical model that models an item to be stored in the chamber ([0061]-[0064] - - Formula 1 is a physical model of an item to be stored in the chamber).
Regarding claim 6, TAKAHIRO all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
TAKAHIRO further teaches: the prediction section predicts a temperature at each position in the chamber ([0036], [0037] - - calculating maximum fluctuation and average fluctuation is predicting temperature at that area), and
the output section outputs the proposal information further based on the temperature at each position in the chamber predicted by the prediction section ([0052] - - select the area based on temperature fluctuation).
Regarding claim 7, TAKAHIRO all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
TAKAHIRO further teaches: the prediction section predicts the temperature at each position in the chamber using measurement information of a temperature measured at a predetermined position in the chamber ([0027] - - temperature measuring instruments measures temperature at its installed locations).
Regarding claim 8, TAKAHIRO all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
TAKAHIRO further teaches: the prediction section predicts the temperature at each position in the chamber further using thermal characteristics inside the chamber ([0061]-[0064] - - estimate current temperature of an area, constant C is thermal characteristic).
Regarding claim 9, TAKAHIRO all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
TAKAHIRO further teaches: the prediction section predicts the temperature at each position in the chamber further using operation information of a cooling device performing freezing or refrigerating inside the chamber ([0061]-[0064] - - elapsed time from the start of energy saving control is operation information of a cooling device).
Regarding claim 10, TAKAHIRO all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
TAKAHIRO further teaches: the prediction section predicts the temperature at each position in the chamber further using information of heat emitted by a stored item already existing in the chamber ([0061]-[0064] - - H is heat capacity of the article, thus the term “C × S × (Tr−T0) × t / H” represents heat emitted by the article).
Regarding claim 11, TAKAHIRO all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
TAKAHIRO further teaches: the prediction section predicts the temperature at each position in the chamber further using information of disturbance caused in the chamber ([0053] - - the areas near door, near walls are predicted to haver higher temperature fluctuations; this is disturbance caused in the chamber).
Regarding claim 12, TAKAHIRO all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
TAKAHIRO further teaches: the prediction section predicts the temperature at each position in the chamber using a physical model that models an interior of the chamber ([0061]-[0064] - - Formula 1 is a model that models the storage area of refrigerator).
Regarding claim 19, TAKAHIRO all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
TAKAHIRO further teaches: the output section outputs the proposal information on setting of a cooling device performing freezing or refrigerating inside the chamber ([0036], [0037] - - maximum fluctuation and average fluctuation are calculated based on set temperature; set temperature is setting of a cooling device; [0052] - - select the area based on temperature fluctuation).
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.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TAKAHIRO et al. WO 2019/229838 (hereinafter TAKAHIRO) in view of Bodin et al. US 2008/0047282 (hereinafter Bodin).
Regarding claim 15, TAKAHIRO all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But TAKAHIRO does not explicitly teach: the output section outputs the proposal information proposing placement of an item to be stored in the chamber, the placement cooling the item in a shorter time.
However, Bodin teaches the output section outputs the proposal information proposing placement of an item to be stored in the chamber, the placement cooling the item in a shorter time ([Fig. 10, [0160] - - identifies the optimal placement of the item based on the temperature; thus the item is cooled to the optimal temperature in a shorter time).
TAKAHIRO and Bodin are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to refrigerator.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above device, as taught by TAKAHIRO, and incorporating placement based on temperature, as taught by Bodin.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to select an optimal placement location for an item, as suggested by Bodin (Abstract).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TAKAHIRO et al. WO 2019/229838 (hereinafter TAKAHIRO) in view of FoodHero “SMART STACKING 101: HOWTO STORE FOOD IN YOURFRIDGE LIKE A PRO” (hereinafter FoodHero).
Regarding claim 16, TAKAHIRO all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But TAKAHIRO does not explicitly teach: the output section outputs the proposal information including information on how to stack an item to be stored in the chamber.
However, FoodHero teaches the output section outputs the proposal information including information on how to stack an item to be stored in the chamber. (Page 1-2 - - smart stacking the food in refrigerator).
TAKAHIRO and FoodHero are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to refrigerator.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above device, as taught by TAKAHIRO, and incorporating smart stacking foods in refrigerator, as taught by FoodHero.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to optimize fridge storage, as suggested by FoodHero (Page 1).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TAKAHIRO et al. WO 2019/229838 (hereinafter TAKAHIRO) in view of GE et al. US 2021/0190416 (hereinafter GE).
Regarding claim 17, TAKAHIRO all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But TAKAHIRO does not explicitly teach: the output section outputs the proposal information including information on a distance between an item to be stored in the chamber and another stored item.
However, GE teaches the output section outputs the proposal information including information on a distance between an item to be stored in the chamber and another stored item ([Fig. 13, [0192], [0195] - - remind the user to store vegetables and fruits separately).
TAKAHIRO and GE are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to refrigerator.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above device, as taught by TAKAHIRO, and incorporating proposing information on a distance between items, as taught by GE.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to manage the food in refrigerator more efficiently, as suggested by GE (Abstract).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TAKAHIRO et al. WO 2019/229838 (hereinafter TAKAHIRO) in view of CHEON et al. US 2012/0260683 (hereinafter CHEON).
Regarding claim 18, TAKAHIRO all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But TAKAHIRO does not explicitly teach: the output section outputs the proposal information representing the placement using an object image corresponding to an item to be stored in the chamber.
However, CHEON teaches: the output section outputs the proposal information representing the placement using an object image corresponding to an item to be stored in the chamber ([Fig. 8C, [0124], [0125] - - outputs the placement of chicken using chicken icon, chicken icon is an object image corresponding to chicken).
TAKAHIRO and CHEON are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to refrigerator.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above device, as taught by TAKAHIRO, and incorporating an object image, as taught by CHEON.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to provide a convenient user interface, as suggested by CHEON ([0068]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUHUI R PAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9872. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM EST.
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, Kamini Shah can be reached at (571) 272-2279. 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.
/YUHUI R PAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2116