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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 04/26/2024, 02/19/2025, and 10/21/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
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 1-20 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 enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Regarding the limitation “predict, based on the output data of the prediction model, an amount of frost in the refrigerator” in claim 1; the specification does not provide adequate written description on how this function would be practiced by one of ordinary skills in the art without undue experimentation.
Predicting an amount of frost in the refrigerator requires a description on how the output data of the prediction model is used to achieve such prediction. However, the application does not provide enough supporting details/explanation on how the aforementioned limitation would be practice.
As the concerns of the examiner regarding the aforementioned claimed limitation is not satisfactorily resolved, doubts are consequently raised with respect to the possession of the claimed invention at the time the invention was filed.
Based on the evidence regarding the each of the wands factors listed below, the specification, at the time the invention was made, would not have taught one skilled in the art how to make and/or use the full scope of the claimed invention.
A: Nature of the invention.
The claimed invention requires that “an amount of frost in the refrigerator be predicted based on the output data of the prediction model”. One skilled in the art would not ascertain how claimed prediction is achieved as the steps which allow the prediction to be made are not disclosed by the appellant specification.
B: The amount of direction provided by the inventor.
The claimed invention requires that the “an amount of frost in the refrigerator be predicted based on the output data of the prediction model”. As the specification does not provide enough guidance on how to an amount of frost in the refrigerator is predicted based on the output data of the prediction model, one skilled in the art would not be able to practice the claim invention without additional guidance from the inventor.
C: Existence of working examples.
The existence of working examples illustrating how an amount of frost in the refrigerator is predicted based on the output data of the prediction model is lacking. As the specification does not provide enough guidance on how to determine the amount of frost in the refrigerator be predicted based on the output data of the prediction model, additional instruction would be needed in order to provide one skilled in the art with the necessary information to produce a working example.
A similar issue is found in each of claims 7 and 18 with the recitation “identify a second defrosting time according to the predicted amount of the frost”. Claims 7 and 18 should be addressed accordingly.
Dependent claims 2-11 and 13-19 are rejected under 112(a) for depending upon a claim that fails to comply with the written description requirement.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1 recite the limitations “predict, based on the output data of the prediction model, an amount of frost in the refrigerator” (see second to last paragraph of claim 1); which limitation is indefinite as it is unclear as to how an amount of frost in the refrigerator is predicted based on the output data of the prediction model.
As referenced by the specification in para [0099];
“the prediction device 260 may be used to predict the amount of frost formed in the evaporator of the refrigerator 102. For example, the amount of frost formed in the evaporator may be represented as a defrosting time (or a time required for defrosting).
.
.
.
In order to quantify the amount of frost formed in the evaporator, the prediction device 260 may predict the amount of frost formed in the evaporator as the defrosting time.”
As also referenced by the specification in para [0140];
“The prediction device 260 may predict the amount of frost in the refrigerator 102 based on output data of the prediction model 260 that is received in response to the input data. The prediction device 260 may identify a defrosting time based on the output data of the prediction model 260. For example, the defrosting time may mean a time required to remove frost from the refrigerator 102. The prediction model 261 may indicate the amount of frost in the refrigerator 102 through the defrosting time.”
However, these sections that best appear to discuss the “prediction of an amount of frost in the refrigerator” to not cure the deficiently outlined above. The cited portions along with the remainer of the specification do not provide details as to how an amount of frost in the refrigerator is predicted based on the output data of the prediction model. Furthermore, further the cited sections raise further clarity issues as it is uncertain as to how the amount of frost in the refrigerator is determined based on a defrosting time. The relationship between the amount of frost and a defrosting time is not sufficiently defined. That is, the examiner cannot readily ascertain the relationship between the amount of frost and a defrosting time. The relationship of parts is not based on any known standard for determining an amount of frost based on a defrosting time. See 2173.05(b) II; Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 2008) (precedential) and Ex parte Brummer, 12 USPQ2d 1653 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989).
A similar issue is found in claims 12 and 20. Appropriate correction is required.
A similar issue is found in each of claims 7 and 18 with the recitation “identify a second defrosting time according to the predicted amount of the frost”. It is unclear as to how the second defrosting time is identified according to the predicted amount of the frost. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim(s) 2-11 and 13-19 is/are indefinite for their dependency on an indefinite base claim.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because of the following reasons:
Claims 1, 12, and 20 each recite a series of steps and therefore are directed to processes.
Analysis Step 2A:
Refrigerators with a communication circuit and a processor that receives instructions for performing defrost” are well known devices in the art as illustrated by the disclosure of Liang (CN 116447805 A) and Takeuchi (JP 2022097876 A). See pertinent prior art discussed below.
The limitation “input, as input data, at least a portion of the first information to a prediction model for managing a defrosting period of the refrigerator, obtain output data from the prediction model in response to the input data, predict, based on the output data of the prediction model, an amount of frost in the refrigerator, and based on the predicted amount of the frost, transmit, via the communication circuit to the refrigerator, second information for setting the defrosting period of the refrigerator” in claim 1 recites performing mathematical calculations, which falls within the "mathematical concepts" grouping of abstract ideas. The steps recited in the aforementioned limitation are mere data gathering and outputs recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. Said steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea using a generic processor.
Step 2B analysis:
The claim does not provide an inventive concept (significantly more than the abstract idea). The claim is ineligible.
As explained above, the aforementioned limitations amount to performing operations on a processor, which is well- understood, routine, and conventional activity; as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. The aforementioned limitations remain insignificant extra-solution activity. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which cannot provide an inventive concept.
As such, the claim does not appear to be eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Similar analyses apply to claims 12 and 20.
Claims 2-11 and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for their dependency on a claim rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Liang (CN 116447805 A) discloses an intelligent detection method for frost formation of refrigerated storage evaporator based on visual identification, using artificial intelligent visual identification technology, intelligently detecting frost formation of refrigerated storage evaporator, so as to realize precise control defrosting.
Takeuchi (JP 2022097876 A) discloses a method for predicting a frost formation in a refrigerator on the basis of at least one of food information indicating food in the refrigerator, a refrigerator interior temperature, door opening/closing history, an outside air temperature or outside air humidity. The method controls a defrosting operation based on the frost formation state predicted by a prediction model.
Wen (CN 110715401 A) discloses a defrosting control method of air conditioner, said method using neural network algorithm for determining the frosting thickness, and perform defrosting operations according to the frosting thickness so as to improve the defrosting effect.
Lee (KR 20230026918 A) discloses a method of performing a defrosting operation of a refrigerator, wherein the method determines whether frosting occurs based on a captured image, wherein the captured imaged is provided as an input to a pre-trained convolutional neural network for determining whether frosting had occurred in the evaporator.
Li (CN 115751598 A) discloses an air conditioner frosting prediction model to calculate the real-time frosting rate of the air conditioner; wherein the defrosting time of the air conditioner is predicted according to the maximum frosting amount of the air conditioner and the calculated air conditioner frosting rate.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIONEL W NOUKETCHA whose telephone number is (571)272-8438. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri: 08:00 AM - 04:00 PM.
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, Frantz Jules can be reached on 571-272-6681. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LIONEL NOUKETCHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763