Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restriction
Claims 6-8 are rejoined. Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-10, 21, and 22 are now examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’ s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3, and 4 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 Rejections – 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richmond (US 8,151,596) in view of Cahill (US 2022/00173354).
Regarding claim 1, Richmond discloses a refrigerator appliance comprising:
a cabinet (opposing sides of 14, 15) defining a storage compartment (inside);
a door (14, 15) attached to the cabinet to selectively restrict access to the storage compartment;
a user interface panel (49) attached to the cabinet to receive a user input signal (53, 54).
a dispenser assembly (40) attached to the cabinet at a dispenser recess, the dispenser assembly comprising a dispenser conduit (80) disposed within the dispenser recess, and a liquid level sensor (77, 78, 93-100, 104-111) mounted at the dispenser recess to detect a volume below the dispenser conduit (4:47-60);
a controller (142) operably coupled to the dispenser assembly
Richmond is silent regarding: (1) a user-detection assembly mounted to the cabinet to detect a user presence; and (2) the controller being configured to initiate an operation routine comprising receiving an autofill signal for the dispenser assembly from the user interface panel, evaluating user presence using the user detection assembly, and directing, subsequent to receiving the autofill signal, the dispenser assembly based on the evaluated user presence, wherein evaluating user presence is subsequent and in response to receiving the autofill signal from the user interface panel. However, Cahill teaches a user-detection assembly (presence sensor 146; [0033]-[0034]) mounted to detect a user presence and a controller operably coupled to the user-detection assembly, the controller being configured to initiate an operation routine comprising receiving an initiating condition, evaluating user presence using the user-detection assembly, and directing a dispensing valve based on the evaluated user presence, wherein evaluating user presence is subsequent to and in response to receiving the initiating condition (Abstract, Fig. 6; [0034]-[0043]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Richmond to include a user-detection assembly operably coupled to a controller, wherein the controller is configured to initiate an operation routine comprising receiving an autofill signal for the dispenser assembly from the user interface panel, evaluating user presence using the user-detection assembly, and directing, subsequent to receiving the autofill signal, the dispenser assembly based on the evaluated user presence, as taught by Cahill, because Cahill teaches that evaluating user presence after an initiating condition and before dispensing verifies that a user is present before dispensing in permitted, thereby reducing unintended dispensing and improving dispensing safety and reliability.
Regarding claim 3, Richmond, as modified by Cahill in claim 1, further discloses wherein evaluating user presence comprises determining a user-absence condition, and wherein directing the dispenser assembly comprises holding the dispenser assembly in a closed state to prevent the flow of fluid from the dispenser conduit (Cahill teaches controller 132 determining that presence sensor 146 does not detect the presence of a user’s hand and, in response thereto, maintaining the dispensing valve in a closed state such that fluid is not dispensed; Fig. 6; [0034]-[0043]).
Regarding claim 4, Richmond, as modified by Cahill in claim 1, further discloses wherein evaluating user presence comprises determining a proximal-user condition (Cahill teaches controller 132 evaluating user presence sensor 146 to determine that a user’s hand or other object is present within the detection zone prior to dispensing; Fig. 6; [0034]-[0043]), and wherein directing the dispenser assembly comprises directing the dispenser assembly to an open state to dispense fluid from the dispenser conduit according to an autofill sequence (Richmond teaches automatically dispensing fluid through disperser 40 under control of controller 142 during an automatic fill operation, and Cahill teaches opening the dispensing valve in response to the determination that the user present; Fig. 6; [0034]-[0043]).
Regarding claim 6, Richmond, as modified by Cahill in claim 1, further discloses wherein receiving the autofill signal comprises detecting a container at the liquid level sensor (Richmond teaches detecting the presence of a container using the liquid level sensor as part of the automatic filling operation and providing an input to controller 142 to initiate or control the automatic dispensing operation; Figs. 3 & 5).
Regarding claim 7, Richmond, as modified by Cahill in claim 6, further discloses wherein the operation routine further comprises determining a failure to receive an autofill input at a user interface of the refrigerator appliance (the examiner notes that under broadest reasonable interpretation, “determining a failure to receive an autofill input” encompasses determining that an expected user-initiated autofill event has not been received within the allotted time interval; Richmond, user interface and autofill operation; Cahill, controller operation during search interval, object detection, and timeout ([0010], [0037], [0049]-[0053], Fig. 6 (steps 210-220, 230))), and revaluating user presence (Cahill, [0036]-[0040], [0053]-[0055]) using the user-detection assembly in response to determining the failure to receive the autofill input (Cahill, Fig. 6, [0036]-[0045], [0049]-[0055]).
Regarding claim 8, Richmond, as modified by Cahill in claim 6, further discloses wherein the operation routine further comprises receiving an autofill input at a user interface of the refrigerator appliance subsequent to receiving the autofill signal (Richmond, user interface, control panel, autofill initiation and controller operation), wherein directing the dispenser assembly comprises directing the dispenser assembly to an open state to dispense fluid from the dispenser conduit according to an autofill sequence in response to receiving the autofill input (Richmond, autofill dispensing operation; Cahill, controller actuates dispensing valve after user-presence determination ([0049]-[0055]; Fig. 6)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9, 10, 21, and 22 are allowed.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SPE DAVID ANGWIN whose telephone number is (571)-270- 3735. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5 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 https://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. 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.
/DAVID P ANGWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Prosecution Insights