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 Amendment
The amendment filed 6/22/2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: applicant recites in claim 1 “a consumption date” and “optimal state for consumption”
The claims as originally filed recite “an eating/drinking date” and “eating timing on the eating/drinking date”. The specification as originally filed only uses consumption with “the food/drink that has reached the eating timing on the specified date of consumption.” (See Paragraph [0024])
The consumption date is not acquired by the control unit in the specification as originally filed. There is not indication from the specification the eating/drinking date is equivalent to the consumption date.
Regarding claim 6, the specification as originally filed does not provide for the storage method from the take out date to the consumption date.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, the term “optimal state for consumption” is not used in the specification as originally filed.
In claims 13 and 14, applicant recites “a consumption date” and “optimal state for consumption”
The claims as originally filed recite “an eating/drinking date” and “eating timing on the eating/drinking date”. The specification as originally filed only uses consumption with “the food/drink that has reached the eating timing on the specified date of consumption.” (See Paragraph [0024])
The consumption date is not acquired by the control unit in the specification as originally filed. There is not indication from the specification the eating/drinking date is equivalent to the consumption date.
The specification as originally filed does not provide for the storage method from the take out date to the consumption date.
The term “optimal state for consumption” is not used in the specification as originally filed.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
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:
“unit” in claim 1
The generic placeholder is “unit” and the functional language attributed the “unit” includes: “acquire information relating to food…based on the information relating to the food or drink, the take-out date, and the consumption date.”
Structure “read into” the claims from the specification to support the claimed functional language includes “a processor” (Paragraph [0082])
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1, 7-14 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 1 “a consumption date” and “optimal state for consumption”
The claims as originally filed recite “an eating/drinking date” and “eating timing on the eating/drinking date”. The specification as originally filed only uses consumption with “the food/drink that has reached the eating timing on the specified date of consumption.” (See Paragraph [0024])
The consumption date is not acquired by the control unit in the specification as originally filed. There is not indication from the specification the eating/drinking date is equivalent to the consumption date.
Regarding claim 6, the specification as originally filed does not provide for the storage method from the take out date to the consumption date.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, the term “optimal state for consumption” is not used in the specification as originally filed.
In claims 13 and 14, applicant recites “a consumption date” and “optimal state for consumption”
The claims as originally filed recite “an eating/drinking date” and “eating timing on the eating/drinking date”. The specification as originally filed only uses consumption with “the food/drink that has reached the eating timing on the specified date of consumption.” (See Paragraph [0024])
The consumption date is not acquired by the control unit in the specification as originally filed. There is not indication from the specification the eating/drinking date is equivalent to the consumption date.
The specification as originally filed does not provide for the storage method from the take out date to the consumption date.
The term “optimal state for consumption” is not used in the specification as originally filed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 6-14 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.
Claim(s) 1, 6-10, 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Yasunobu et al (CN 11683535) in view of Ding (CN 108022369).
Regarding claim 1, Yasunobu discloses, A storage (storage chamber 6) comprising:
a control unit (control unit, See Paragraph [0049]); and
an actuator configured to adjust an environment based on an instruction from the control unit, wherein the control unit acquires information relating to food/drink in the storage and a specified date, (In the present application [0055] the "actuator" refers to "the refrigeration device 110 and the air composition adjustment device 120". This functionally corresponds to [0026] "the fan 8 for forced ventilation of cold air cooled with the cooler 7 and the cooler 7 behind the freezer compartment 5.", see [0050]-[0051] and Figure 13 for the details regarding the adjustment of the cold air inflow, a thawing process is performed. Using the operation panel 11 in advance, according to the date and time when the scheduled take-out date and time is input on the operation panel, the storage compartment is set to the first storage area several hours before the scheduled date and time when the user takes out the food (12 hours before as an example." See Paragraph [0113])
Yasunobu fails to disclose, control unit is configured to: acquire information relating to food or drink stored in the storage, a take-out date of the food or drink from the storage, and a consumption date of the food or drink and a specified date, and give the instruction to the actuator regarding a control target value of the a environment such that the food or drink reaches an optimal state for consumption on the consumption date, based on the information relating to the food or drink, the take-out date, and the consumption date and the specified date.
Ding discloses, “according to the reservation time, reservation operation program, specifically comprises: according to the meal taking time of reservation, determining start natural thawing process or microwave thawing process, which is determined by the time length of reservation If it is determined that the starting natural thawing process, the user after reservation to start the transmission process, or calculating the pre-transfer time and starting timing device, when reaching the preset time, starting the conveying process, regardless of when the starting natural thawing process, namely the food transported to containing the thawing chamber through pre-conveying device, conveying the food to be calculated first transmission start time.”
The claim requires information is obtained, including two dates. The name for the information (take-out date and consumption date) is arbitrary in terms of obviousness. The name for the dates does not add structure or function to the claim. Any two dates or times being used to control a value of the environment would be considered obvious. The function of Ding is considered to be analogous as it uses a reservation time and starting time to control the target value of the food environment (thawing chamber) so it is ready at the appropriate time. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art adapt Yasunobu in view of Ding to provide acquire information relating to food or drink stored in the storage, a take-out date of the food or drink from the storage, and a consumption date of the food or drink and a specified date, and give the instruction to the actuator regarding a control target value of the a environment such that the food or drink reaches an optimal state for consumption on the consumption date, based on the information relating to the food or drink, the take-out date, and the consumption date and the specified date, in order to increase cooking speed and reduce the wait time for the user.
Yasunobu discloses, regarding claims 6-7, the user is notified of the completion of the storage process through displays. (See Paragraph [0125]) Regarding claim 10, the device controls the temperature of the air. Air is gas and the temperature of the air is a condition related to the gas inside the storage chamber 6. Regarding claim 12, the temperature adjustment is related to thawing. (See Paragraph [0113])
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Yasunobu discloses, (see specification paragraphs [0096] to [0108], figures 12 to 13): its control section takes the kind of food inside the storage compartment 6 and takes the predetermined date (i.e. Discloses the specified date); based on the type of food and the scheduled date of removal, the actuator is instructed to adjust the temperature of the storage compartment 6 to a third temperature domain, e.g., 4 ° C, for a period of time while the food is in a frozen state (i.e., it is disclosed that a control target value of a designated day is taken and a storage environment of the diet is determined based on the diet and the designated day in a case where the diet is not eligible). Yasunobu fails to disclose, the control unit conveys the food/drink to an outlet of the storage when the food/drink has reached the eating timing, and acquires the specified date when the food/drink has not reached the eating timing, and determines the control target value of the storage environment of the food/drink based on the food/drink and the specified date.
Ding discloses, after the food is grilled, the grilled food is transferred to the access port 900 by a user's meal retrieval operation and a second transfer means for transferring the grilled food product to the access port 900 according to a second transfer procedure. (See Paragraphs [0048]-[0058] and Figs 1-2 a)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention to, adapt Yasunobu in view of Ding to provide the conveyance when the target value of the food is reached for automatically providing the food at the specified time.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, A method executed by a control unit (control unit, See Paragraph [0049]); of a storage, the storage including an actuator configured to adjust an environment based on an instruction from the control unit, (In the present application [0055] the "actuator" refers to "the refrigeration device 110 and the air composition adjustment device 120". This functionally corresponds to [0026] "the fan 8 for forced ventilation of cold air cooled with the cooler 7 and the cooler 7 behind the freezer compartment 5.", see [0050]-[0051] and Figure 13 for the details regarding the adjustment of the cold air inflow) the method comprising: , a thawing process is performed. Using the operation panel 11 in advance, according to the date and time when the scheduled take-out date and time is input on the operation panel, the storage compartment is set to the first storage area several hours before the scheduled date and time when the user takes out the food (12 hours before as an example." See Paragraph [0113])
Yasunobu fails to disclose, acquire information relating to food or drink stored in the storage, a take-out date of the food or drink from the storage, and a consumption date of the food or drink and a specified date, and give the instruction to the actuator regarding a control target value of the a environment such that the food or drink reaches an optimal state for consumption on the consumption date, based on the information relating to the food or drink, the take-out date, and the consumption date and the specified date.
Ding discloses, “according to the reservation time, reservation operation program, specifically comprises: according to the meal taking time of reservation, determining start natural thawing process or microwave thawing process, which is determined by the time length of reservation If it is determined that the starting natural thawing process, the user after reservation to start the transmission process, or calculating the pre-transfer time and starting timing device, when reaching the preset time, starting the conveying process, regardless of when the starting natural thawing process, namely the food transported to containing the thawing chamber through pre-conveying device, conveying the food to be calculated first transmission start time.”
The claim requires information is obtained, including two dates. The name for the information (take-out date and consumption date) is arbitrary in terms of obviousness. The name for the dates does not add structure or function to the claim. Any two dates or times being used to control a value of the environment would be considered obvious. The function of Ding is considered to be analogous as it uses a reservation time and starting time to control the target value of the food environment (thawing chamber) so it is ready at the appropriate time. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art adapt Yasunobu in view of Ding to provide acquire information relating to food or drink stored in the storage, a take-out date of the food or drink from the storage, and a consumption date of the food or drink and a specified date, and give the instruction to the actuator regarding a control target value of the a environment such that the food or drink reaches an optimal state for consumption on the consumption date, based on the information relating to the food or drink, the take-out date, and the consumption date and the specified date, in order to increase cooking speed and reduce the wait time for the user.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Yasunobu et al (CN 11683535) in view of Ding (CN 108022369) and Lin (US 2019/0133143).
The teachings of Yasunobu have been discussed above. Yasunobu fails to disclose wherein the gas inside the storage includes any one of ethylene, acetylene, or propylene.
Lin discloses, a fruit ripening system and a fruit ripening method, and specifically discloses the following technical features (see paragraphs [0052], [0072] to [0076], Figures 1 to 4): determining a desired ripening gas concentration based on an initial doneness and a target doneness of the fruit, controlling the ripening gas generator 120 to provide the ripening gas to the closed container 1010 to control the ripening gas concentration within the closed container 10 to be at the desired ripening gas concentration; the ripening gas generator 120 is, for example, an ethylene gas generator or other ripening gas generator. (See Paragraph [0017]) It would have been obvious to adapt Yasunobu in view of Lin to provide the ethylene gas for controlling the ripening of food in the storage.
Conclusion
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 BRIAN W JENNISON whose telephone number is (571)270-5930. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-5.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at 571-270-5569. 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.
/BRIAN W JENNISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761 9/4/2026
Prosecution Insights