DETAILED ACTION
This rejection is in response to Amendments filed on 01/07/2026.
Claims 1-15 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claims 1 and 3-8 are withdrawn.
Claims 2 and 9-15 have been elected.
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 filed 01/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 2 and 9-15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
11. The smart refrigerator of claim10,…
Examiner recommends amending claim 11 to recite: The smart refrigerator of claim 10 ,…
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 2 and 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 2 recites: wherein the expiration information obtained from the RFID tags is stored as item-specific expiration data in a database without reliance on image-based identification, visual analysis, or inferred freshness estimation. However, the specification fails to describe that the expiration information is stored without reliance on image-based identification, visual analysis, or inferred freshness estimation. Paragraph [0011] of Applicant’s specification states the opposite of the claim by describing the use of both RFID, image analysis, or the user manually selecting the food items. The specification fails to describe visual analysis or inferred freshness estimation. Therefore, the claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
Claim 9 recites: and wherein expiration determination is performed exclusively using the encoded RFID data and not by optical character recognition. However, the specification fails to describe that the expiration determination is performed exclusively using the encoded RFID data and not by optical character recognition. Paragraph [0050] of Applicant’s specification states that the expiration date is received from the RFID tag. However, the specification fails to describe that optical character recognition is not performed. Therefore, the claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
Claim 14 recites: the processor generates a discard notification without presenting a purchase initiation option. However, the specification fails to describe that the a discard notification is generated without presenting a purchase initiation option. Paragraph [0015] of Applicant’s specification states that a notification will be sent to the user two days prior to expiration and asked if they are interested in making a purchase and an additional notification can be sent on the day of the expiration to discard the expired food item. However, the specification fails to describe that a discard notification is generated without presenting a purchase initiation option. Therefore, the claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 2 and 9-15 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.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for the following claim limitation in:
Claim 2 recites: The smart refrigerator connected to an IoT…
Examiner recommends amending claim 2 to recite: A [[The]] smart refrigerator connected to an IoT… Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
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 2 and 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test, it must be considered whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory classes of invention. See MPEP § 2106. In the instant case, claims 2 and 9-15 are directed to a smart refrigerator which falls within one of the four statutory categories of invention(process/apparatus). Accordingly, the claims will be further analyzed under revised step 2:
Under step 2A (prong 1) of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test, it must be considered whether the claims recite a judicial exception if so, then determine in Prong Two if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception. If the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea), the claim requires further analysis in Prong Two. One of the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas is defined as certain methods of organizing human activity that includes fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).
Regarding representative independent claim 2, recites the abstract idea of:
wherein food items are identified during a restocking event by reading expiration information encoded in radio frequency identification (RFID) tags attached to the food items…,.
The above-recited limitations amounts to certain methods of organizing human activity associated with sales activities and commercial interactions related to food items that are identified during a restocking event by reading expiration information. Such concepts have been considered ineligible certain methods of organizing human activity by the Courts. See MPEP § 2106.
The Step 2A (prong 2) of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test, is the next step in the eligibility analyses and looks at whether the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. This requires an additional element or combination of additional elements in the claims to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP § 2106.
In this instance, the claims recite the additional elements such as:
The smart refrigerator connected to an IoT network, …. using a RFID scanner electrically coupled to a microcontroller…, and wherein the expiration information obtained from the RFID tags is stored as item-specific expiration data in a database without reliance on image-based identification, visual analysis, or inferred freshness estimation (Claim 2);
wherein a processor… item-specific expiration dates stored in the database (Claim 10);
at least one user device as a short message service (SMS) alert and is simultaneously displayed on a touch-screen display mounted on or integrated with the refrigerator (Claim 11);
wherein the processor is configured to… stored in the database (Claim 12);
the processor (Claims 13 & 14);
a user device and simultaneously displayed on a touchscreen mounted on the smart refrigerator (Claim 15).
However, these elements do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field, apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Independent claims and dependent claims also fail to recite elements which amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field, apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. For example, independent claims and dependent claims are directed to the abstract idea itself and do not amount to an integration according to any one of the considerations above.
Step 2B is the next step in the eligibility analyses and evaluates whether the claims recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (i.e., “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception. According to Office procedure, revised Step 2A overlaps with Step 2B, and thus, many of the considerations need not be re-evaluated in Step 2B because the answer will be the same. See MPEP § 2106.
In Step 2A, several additional elements were identified as additional limitations:
The smart refrigerator connected to an IoT network, …. using a RFID scanner electrically coupled to a microcontroller…, and wherein the expiration information obtained from the RFID tags is stored as item-specific expiration data in a database without reliance on image-based identification, visual analysis, or inferred freshness estimation (Claim 2);
wherein a processor… item-specific expiration dates stored in the database (Claim 10);
at least one user device as a short message service (SMS) alert and is simultaneously displayed on a touch-screen display mounted on or integrated with the refrigerator (Claim 11);
wherein the processor is configured to… stored in the database (Claim 12);
the processor (Claims 13 & 14);
a user device and simultaneously displayed on a touchscreen mounted on the smart refrigerator (Claim 15).
These additional limitations, including the limitations in the independent claims and dependent claims, do not amount to an inventive concept because the recitations above do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field, apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. In addition, they were already analyzed under Step 2A and did not amount to a practical application of the abstract idea.
For these reasons, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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.
Claim(s) 2, 9-10, 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hossain, Shadeep & Abdelgawad, Ahmed, “Smart Refrigerator Based on Internet of Things (IoT) An Approach to Efficient Food Management”, October 18, 2018, pages 1-4 (hereinafter “Hossain”).
Regarding claim 2
Hossain discloses the smart refrigerator connected to an Internet of Things (loT) network, wherein food items are identified during a restocking event by reading expiration information encoded in radiofrequency identification (RFID) tags attached to the food items using a RFID scanner electrically coupled to a microcontroller, and wherein the expiration information obtained from the RFID tags is stored as item-specific expiration data in a database without reliance on image-based identification, visual analysis, or inferred freshness estimation (Hossain, Pg. 1, L1-20: smart refrigerator via IoT and microcontroller to determine product expiration date, Pg. 1, L50-89: Radio-frequency identification RFID tags and RFID scanning of items to identify new and removed items from the refrigerator and database to access information about the product; Pg. 3, L28-30: RFID Scanner allows scanning of items for expiration date regulation; Pg. 4, L1-10: product expiration information and quantity of product stored in cloud database; PG.3, Fig. 6, smart fridge architecture).
Regarding claim 9
Hossain discloses the smart refrigerator according to claim 2, wherein the expiration information read from the RFID tags is validated against a pre-defined data format or checksum prior to storage, and wherein expiration determination is performed exclusively using the encoded RFID data and not by optical character recognition (Hossain, Pg. 1, L1-20: determine product expiration date, Pg. 1, L50-89: track products through RFID tags and identify a list of new and removed items from the refrigerator that is linked to a web based shopping list and check product inventory; Pg. 3, L28-30: RFID Scanner allows scanning of items for expiration date regulation; Pg. 4, L1-10: product expiration information and quantity of product stored in cloud database; Pg. 2, L55-78: Fig. 2 and 3: predetermined minimum threshold and check whether food items are close to expiration date and list items in database based on expiration date).
Regarding claim 10
Hossain discloses the smart refrigerator of claim 9, wherein a processor continuously evaluates item-specific expiration dates stored in the database and automatically generates a notification when a current date satisfies a predetermined temporal condition corresponding to two days prior to an expiration date of a food item (Hossain, Pg. 2, L55-78: Figs. 3-4: check whether food items are within a certain amount of days to the expiration date and list items in database based on expiration date and message user that has products close to expiring).
Regarding claim 12
Hossain discloses the smart refrigerator of claim 9, wherein the processor is configured to continuously evaluate expiration dates associated with a plurality of food items stored in the database and to generate a list identifying food items that satisfy a predetermined temporal condition relative to their respective expiration dates (Hossain, Pg. 1, L1-20: determine product expiration date, Pg. 3, L28-30: RFID Scanner allows scanning of items for expiration date regulation; Pg. 4, L1-10: product expiration information and quantity of product stored in cloud database; Pg. 2, L55-78: Fig. 2 and 3: predetermined minimum threshold and check whether food items are close to expiration date and list items in database based on expiration date).
Regarding claim 13
Hossain discloses the smart refrigerator of claim 12, wherein, only when the temporal status indicates that a food item is within a predefined pre-expiration window, the processor generates a notification including a user-selectable prompt to initiate a replenishment action through a connected retail- service (Hossain, Pg. 2, L36-53: food items in refrigerator that are very close to expiration date are identified for purchase; Pg. 2, L66-77: online option to make purchase from a retailer is made available to purchase food item; Pg. 3, FIG. 4, contact to connect to online shopping option to purchase; Pg. 2, L55-78: Figs. 3-4: check whether food items are within a certain amount of days to the expiration date and list items in database based on expiration date and message user that has products close to expiring).
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.
Claim(s) 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hossain as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of
Vaananen (US Pub. No. 20210383457 A1, hereinafter “Vaananen”).
Regarding claim 11
Hossain discloses the smart refrigerator of claim10, wherein the notification is automatically transmitted to at least one user device as a short message service (SMS) alert …(Hossain, Pg. 2, L55-78: Fig. 4: send text message to user that has products close to expiring and simultaneously the user in need for the item ; Pg. 3, L44-33: process collected data and relay information for a graphical interface; Pg. 1, L71-89: GUI output; Pg. 1, L50-72: mobile device).
Hossain does not teach:
…and is simultaneously displayed on a touch-screen display mounted on or integrated with the refrigerator.
However, Vaananen teaches:
and is simultaneously displayed on a touch-screen display mounted on or integrated with the refrigerator (Vaananen, FIG. 7, [0155]: the user interface 310 on refrigerator displays data; [0087]: display connected to refrigerator is touch screen; [0135]: the CPU 290 sends an alert notification to the user terminal device 215 and also display the alert notification on the display screen 260; [0087]: display text).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the notification of Hossain with simultaneously displaying the notification on a touch-screen display mounted on or integrated with the refrigerator as taught by Vaananen because the results of such a modification would be predictable. Specifically, Hossain would continue to teach the notification except that now simultaneously displaying the notification on a touch-screen display mounted on or integrated with the refrigerator is taught according to the teachings of Vaananen in order to display alerts. This is a predictable result of the combination. (Vaananen, [0074]).
Regarding claim 15
Hossain discloses the smart refrigerator of claim 14,wherein, the discard notification is transmitted to a user device (Hossain, FIG. 4, Pg. 2, L, 66-77: contact consumer through text message and provide option to discard the purchase altogether and send text message to user that has products close to expiring and simultaneously the user in need for the item; Pg. 3, L44-33: process collected data and relay information for a graphical interface; Pg. 1, L71-89: GUI output; Pg. 1, L50-72: mobile device).
Hossain does not teach:
…and simultaneously displayed on a touchscreen mounted on the smart refrigerator.
However, Vaananen teaches:
…and simultaneously displayed on a touchscreen mounted on the smart refrigerator (Vaananen, FIG. 7, [0155]: the user interface 310 on refrigerator displays data; [0087]: display connected to refrigerator is touch screen; [0135]: the CPU 290 sends an alert notification to the user terminal device 215 and also display the alert notification on the display screen 260; [0087]: display text).
The motivation to combine Hossain and Vaananen is the same as set forth above in claim 11.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hossain as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Lindsay et al. (US Pub. No. 20040100380 A1, hereinafter “Lindsay”).
Regarding claim 14
Hossain discloses the smart refrigerator of claim 12, … a discard notification without presenting a purchase initiation option (Hossain, Pg. 2, L, 66-77: contact consumer through text message and provide option to discard the purchase altogether).
Hossain does not teach:
wherein, when the temporal status indicates that the food item has reached or passed its stored expiration date, the processor generates a discard notification ...
However, Lindsay teaches:
wherein, when the temporal status indicates that the food item has reached or passed its stored expiration date, the processor generates a discard notification … (Lindsay, [0010]: issue an alert (visible) when a stored product has expired or exceeded a pre-determined freshness date [0021]: an alert to indicate that the product needs to be used or discarded; [0062]: When the discard date approaches, the consumer can be alerted that the container needs to be removed and the contents used or discarded as a visual alert on a display screen).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the discard notification of Hossain with notifying the user when the food item is expired as taught by Lindsay because the results of such a modification would be predictable. Specifically, Hossain would continue to teach the discard notification except that now notifying the user when the food item is expired is taught according to the teachings of Lindsay in order to issue alerts when a product is expired. This is a predictable result of the combination. (Lindsay, [0010]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is cited as Oleynik et al. (US Pub. No. 20210387350 A1) related to a robotic kitchen with a smart refrigerator that detects data about food from RFID tags, Cote et al. (US Pub. No. 20210278129 A1) related to a refrigerator that applies object identification technology automatically to identify items as they are placed in and removed from the storage unit and deriving expiry dates of perishable items, and non-patent literature, The Implementation of IoT Based Smart Refrigerator System, related to smart kitchens using Internet of Things to alert a user about food condition.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 LATASHA DEVI RAMPHAL whose telephone number is (571)272-2644. The examiner can normally be reached 11 AM - 7:30 PM (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, Jeffrey A. Smith can be reached at 5712726763. 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.
/LATASHA D RAMPHAL/Examiner, Art Unit 3688
/Jeffrey A. Smith/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3688
Prosecution Insights