DETAILED ACTION
This rejection is in response to Response to Election/Restriction filed on 10/20/2025.
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Claims 1 and 3-8 are withdrawn.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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 9-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Each claim begins with a capital letter and ends with a period. Periods may not be used elsewhere in the claims except for abbreviations. See MPEP 608.01(m).
Claim 2 is missing a period at the end of the claim limitation. Examiner recommends ending claim 2 with a period.
Claim 10 recites: The smart refrigerator connected to IoT in claim 2 also uses cameras to take pictures of the fresh bought food articles as they are stocked into the shelves. Convolution Neural Network can be used to identify food articles. Claim 10 has two sentences that end with periods when a claim must end in one period. Examiner recommends amending claim 10 by combining the two sentences into one sentence and ending the one sentence with only one period. For example, applicant can amend claim 10 to recite: The smart refrigerator connected to IoT in claim 2 also uses cameras to take pictures of the fresh bought food articles as they are stocked into the shelves[[.]] and a Convolution Neural Network can be used to identify food articles.
Claims 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 also have multiple sentences that end in multiple periods. Examiner recommends amending claims 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 to combine the multiple sentences into one sentence per claim that ends with only one period.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim should refer to other claims in the alternative only--, and/or, --cannot depend from any other multiple dependent claim. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Claim 14 recites “According to claim 2…An API can be used as discussed in claim 8, rendering the claim in the improper form because claim 14 can only refer to other claims in the alternative only and cannot depend from multiple dependent claims. Also, claim 8 is a withdrawn claim. Examiner recommends amending claim 14 to recite: An API can be used
Claim 15 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim should refer to other claims in the alternative only--, and/or, --cannot depend from any other multiple dependent claim. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Claim 15 recites according to claim 2, the list of food items in claims 12 and 13, rendering the claim in the improper form because claim 15 can only refer to other claims in the alternative only and cannot depend from multiple dependent claims. Accordingly, the claim has not been further treated on the merits. Examiner recommends amending claim 15 to recite the following limitations since the list of food items is only mentioned in claim 12: “According to the smart refrigerator connected to IoT of claim [[2]] 12, wherein the list of food items
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.
Independent claim 2 recites “the smart refrigerator connected to an IoT,” claim 9 recites: “The smart refrigerator connected to IoT according to claim 2;” claim 10 recites: “The smart refrigerator connected to IoT in claim 2;” claim 11 recites: The smart refrigerator in claim 2; claims 12-15 recite: “According to claim 2,” rendering said claims indefinite because claim 2 does not recite an explanation of the abbreviation “IoT,” claims 9-15 do not recite consistent language that makes it clear that the dependent claims refer back to independent claim 2, and it is unclear whether claims 9 and 10 are referring to the same or different IoT than claim 2. Examiner recommends amending claim 2 to recite an IoT (Internet of Things), amending claims 9-10 to recite the IoT. Examiner recommends amending claims 9-15 to recite “The smart refrigerator connected to the IoT according to claim 2” in order to keep the dependent claim limitations consistent and clarify that all dependent claims depend on the smart refrigerator connected to the IoT according to claim 2. Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
Claim 9 recites “RFID scanner” and “RFID tag” without providing an explanation of the abbreviation rendering said claims indefinite because it is unclear what the abbreviation stands for. Examiner recommends amending claim 9 to include the explanation of the abbreviation in parentheses. Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
Claim 12 recites “A SQL server database” without providing an explanation of the abbreviation rendering said claims indefinite because it is unclear what the abbreviation stands for. Examiner recommends amending claim 12 to include the explanation of the abbreviation in parentheses. Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
Claim 14 recites “API” without providing an explanation of the abbreviation rendering said claims indefinite because it is unclear what the abbreviation stands for. Examiner recommends amending claim 14 to include the explanation of the abbreviation in parentheses. Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
The term “their desired refrigeration shelf life” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “their desired refrigeration shelf life” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. What is their desired refrigeration shelf life? How is desired measured? What is the scope? Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
The term “the typical refrigeration shelf life” in claim 13 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “the typical refrigeration shelf life” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. What is the typical refrigeration shelf life? How is typical measured? What is the scope? Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for the following claim limitation in:
Claim 2 recites: The smart refrigerator connected to an IoT will be able to notify the user (ii) when the product is close to expiration depending on their marked expiration date for "packed" products and for perishable food items on comparison against their desired refrigeration shelf life;
Claim 9 recites: scan the RFID tags and record the food items as they are stocked into the smart refrigerator;
Claim 10 recites: the fresh bought food articles as they are stocked into the shelves;
Claim 11 recites select the food items from a touch screen mounted and connected to the refrigerator. For perishable food items they will also include a tentative refrigeration shelf life;
Claim 12 recites the list of food items will be regularly tracked until their expiration is two days prior to the current date. A SQL server database will be used on the cloud to track the food items, their date of purchase and their date of expiration;
Claim 13 recites: the typical refrigeration shelf life. The database can be created using information available online;
Claim 14 recites: the list of food items that are close to expiration will be compiled;
Claim 15 recites: the list of food items in claims 12 and 13 that have reached the exact day of expiration will be sent as a notification to the user to discard the food items. The notification will be in form of text/SMS service and also simultaneously displayed on the touch screen tablet mounted on the smart refrigerator
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 1, recites the abstract idea of:
notify the user (ii) when the product is close to expiration depending on their marked expiration date for "packed" products and for perishable food items on comparison against their desired refrigeration shelf life.
The above-recited limitations amounts to certain methods of organizing human activity associated with sales activities and commercial interactions related to notifying the user of item information such as expiration date for perishable food items compared to refrigeration shelf life. 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 (Claim 2);
an RFID scanner (Claim 9);
cameras…Convolution Neural Network (Claim 10);
a touch screen mounted and connected to the refrigerator (Claim 11);
A SQL server database will be used on the cloud (Claim 12);
API … from a third-party online retail store (Claim 14);
simultaneously displayed on the touch screen tablet 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 (Claim 2);
an RFID scanner (Claim 9);
cameras…Convolution Neural Network (Claim 10);
a touch screen mounted and connected to the refrigerator (Claim 11);
A SQL server database will be used on the cloud (Claim 12);
API … from a third-party online retail store (Claim 14);
simultaneously displayed on the touch screen tablet 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, 9-11, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vaananen (US Pub. No. 20210383457 A1, hereinafter “Vaananen”).
Regarding claim 2
Vaananen discloses the smart refrigerator connected to an IoT will be able to notify the user (ii) when the product is close to expiration depending on their marked expiration date for "packed" products and for perishable food items on comparison against their desired refrigeration shelf life (Vaananen, [0010]: refrigerator connected to sensors; [0072] The refrigerator 225 and the user terminal device 215 communicate with the cloud server 205 via internet; [0109]: a best before date on the food packages is identified and used to determine food that should be consumed before it expires; [0139]: if determined that food in refrigerator may expire in two days, provide suggestion to user to use the food; [0144]: GPU 210 or 240 and/or CPU 290 is programmed to recommend expensive food items to be consumed before the expiry date in order to avoid wastage of expensive food items; FIG. 7, [0155]: the user interface 310 the CPU 290 suggests recipes considering the expiry dates of the ingredients. The diet plan displayed in the user interface).
Regarding claim 9
Vaananen discloses the smart refrigerator connected to IoT according to claim 2 will use an RFID scanner to scan the RFID tags and record the food items as they are stocked into the smart refrigerator (Vaananen, [0107]: camera performs visual search by scanning RFID tag; [0143]: RFID tag and scans a bar code on a food package; [0061]: store food items identified in memory; [0081]: The camera 235, 236, 237, or 238 takes an image of the food items 259 stored in the refrigerator; [0055]: camera captures food placed in the refrigerator).
Regarding claim 10
Vaananen discloses the smart refrigerator connected to IoT in claim 2 also uses cameras to take pictures of the fresh bought food articles as they are stocked into the shelves. Convolution Neural Network can be used to identify food articles (Vaananen, [0010]: camera in refrigerator captures images on food articles placed inside refrigerator; FIG, 2A, [0145]: cameras 235, 236, 237, 238 capture images of the food items 259 of the refrigerator 225; [0063]: convolutional neural networks to correctly recognize a food item that is fresh; [0158]: determines that the apple 245 is a fresh Lobo apple that may last up to 7 days in the refrigerator) .
Regarding claim 11
Vaananen discloses the smart refrigerator in claim 2 will have an option to select the food items from a touch screen mounted and connected to the refrigerator. For perishable food items they will also include a tentative refrigeration shelf life (Vaananen, [0010]: refrigerator connected to sensors; [0072] The refrigerator 225 and the user terminal device 215 communicate with the cloud server 205 via internet; [0109]: a best before date on the food packages is identified and used to determine food that should be consumed before it expires; [0139]: if determined that food in refrigerator may expire in two days, provide suggestion to user to use the food; [0144]: GPU 210 or 240 and/or CPU 290 is programmed to recommend expensive food items to be consumed before the expiry date in order to avoid wastage of expensive food items; FIG. 7, [0155]: the user interface 310 the CPU 290 suggests recipes considering the expiry dates of the ingredients. The diet plan displayed in the user interface; [0087]: display connected to refrigerator is touch screen; [0170]: The user may select a food item 259 to be via the user interface 905).
Regarding claim 13
Vaananen discloses according to claim 2, for perishable food items a tentative expiration date is presumed from the typical refrigeration shelf life. The database can be created using information available online (Vaananen, [0102]: The CPU 290 may use names, images, or parts of images of the recognized food items 259 as query terms to search for recipes from the Internet or a cloud database; [0126] The search index 444 may be created by using the images, location of the images on the Internet, HTML title tags that indicate a title of a corresponding web page, HTML alt attributes that indicate an alternative text to be displayed that is a proprietary database of search indices stored in the cloud server 205; [0122]: compare historical data associated with the apple 245 stored in the local memory of the refrigerator 225 or the cloud server 205 to determine that the apple 245 is 3 days old and recommend to consume apple within 5-10 days; [0158]: determines that the apple 245 is a fresh Lobo apple that may last up to 7 days in the refrigerator 225.).
Regarding claim 14
Vaananen discloses according to claim 2, the list of food items that are close to expiration will be compiled. A text notification will be sent to the user to know whether the user wants to make a purchase. An API can be used as discussed in claim 8 to make the purchase from a third-party online retail store (Vaananen, FIG. 7, [0155]: the user interface 310 the CPU 290 displays the expiry dates of the food ingredients; [0103]: updates a shopping list with details such as, a name, a type, a quantity, etc., of the deficient food items 259. The updated shopping list is displayed in the user interface 315, and can be sent to the grocer also for purchase and delivery; [0154]: The user may select the items and corresponding quantities, pay for the purchase, and the CPU 290 sends the order to the grocery store; [0118]: API).
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) 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaananen as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Lindsay et al. (US Pub. No. 20040100380 A1, hereinafter “Lindsay”).
Regarding claim 12
Vaananen discloses according to claim 2, the list of food items will be regularly tracked until their expiration is two days prior to the current date. A SQL server database will be used on the cloud to track the food items, …and their date of expiration (Vaananen, [0138]: identifies that 500 gm of salmon fish fillets 258 expiring in 2 days are present in the refrigerator 225 and recommends user to prepare the dish with salmon; [0085]: Food staleness is typically determined by observing the colour and size of the food article over time; [0055]: cloud server).
Vaananen does not teach:
their date of purchase.
However, Lindsay teaches:
their date of purchase (Lindsay, [0010]: date purchased).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the tracking of food items of Vaananen with also tracking their date of purchase as taught by Lindsay because the results of such a modification would be predictable. Specifically, Vaananen would continue to teach tracking of food items except that now tracking their date of purchase is taught according to the teachings of Lindsay in order to track products by dates. This is a predictable result of the combination. (Lindsay, [0010]).
Regarding claim 15
Vaananen discloses according to claim 2, …The notification will be in form of text/SMS service and also simultaneously displayed on the touch screen tablet 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).
Vaananen does not teach:
the list of food items in claims 12 and 13 that have reached the exact day of expiration will be sent as a notification to the user to discard the food items.
However, Lindsay teaches:
the list of food items in claims 12 and 13 that have reached the exact day of expiration will be sent as a notification to the user to discard the food items (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).
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 Vaananen with notifying the user the exact date of expiration to discard food as taught by Lindsay because the results of such a modification would be predictable. Specifically, Vaananen would continue to teach the notification except that now notifying the user the exact date of expiration to discard food 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.
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