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 .
Status
This Office Action is in response to the remarks and amendments filed on 02/04/2026. The drawing objection is withdrawn. Claims 1-15 remain pending for consideration on the merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (KR 20200018073 A, hereinafter Lee) in view of Kim et al (US 20160238310 A1, hereinafter Kim).
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches an electronic apparatus (machine 100), comprising: a water tank (water tank 140) that is mountable to the electronic apparatus (as shown on figure 5); a water tank mount sensor (sensor unit, abstract) configured to output a signal indicating whether the water tank is mounted to the electronic apparatus (as described in the abstract).
Lee teaches the invention as described above but fail to teach and at least one processor configured to: identify a mounted state of the water tank based on the signal output by the water tank mount sensor, and provide a guide message including instructions for a user to manage the water tank, based on the identified mounted state and a duration of the mounted state.
However, Kim teaches and at least one processor (processor 300) configured to: identify a mounted state of the water tank based on the signal output by the water tank mount sensor (when the mixing container 170 is sensed, operation S314, paragraph 0231), and provide a guide message including instructions for a user to manage (interpreted as instructions to the user to detach mounting body 272 (S315) when the mixing container 170 is sensed (S314), paragraph 0231) the water tank (provide mounting information to the user as a sound, paragraph 0229), based on the identified mounted state and a duration of the mounted state (after the mixing container 170 is installed on the mounting body 272 (YES in operation S311) and after a predetermined amount of time passes, when the mixing container 170 is sensed (operation S314) to be detached from the mounting body 272 (YES in operation S315), paragraph 0231).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus in the teachings of Lee to include and at least one processor configured to: identify a mounted state of the water tank based on the signal output by the water tank mount sensor, and provide a guide message including instructions for a user to manage the water tank, based on the identified mounted state and a duration of the mounted state in view of the teachings of Kim in order to yield the predictable result of providing mounting information to the user.
Further, it is understood, claim 1 includes an intended use recitation, for example “…configured to...”. The applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner which a claimed apparatus is intended to be does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, the claims are directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
Regarding claim 2, the combined teachings teach wherein the at least one processor (processor 300 of Kim) is configured to: based on a first duration time (detachment information, interpreted to include time, paragraph 0014 of Kim) being passed with the identified mounted state being a state that the water tank is not mounted to the electronic apparatus (when the mixing container 170 is sensed (operation S314) to be detached from the mounting body 272 (YES in operation S315), paragraph 0231 of Kim), provide a first guide message for the user for managing the water tank (as described in paragraph 0231 of Kim), and based on a second duration time (a predefined amount of time, paragraph 0233 of Kim) being passed with the identified mounted state being a state that the water tank is mounted to the electronic apparatus (when the mixing container 170 is not detached from the mounting body 272, paragraph 0233 of Kim), provide a second guide message for the user for managing the water tank (under the control of the processor 300, at least one of the display portion 41, the lighting portion 42, and the sound output portion 43 of the user interface 40 may display a warning or output a warning sound, paragraph 0233 of Kim).
Further, it is understood, claim 2 includes an intended use recitation, for example “…configured to...”. The applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner which a claimed apparatus is intended to be does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, the claims are directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
Regarding claim 11, the combined teachings teach further comprising: a communication interface (short-range communication, for example, Bluetooth communication, paragraph of Lee), wherein the processor (server 50 of Lee) is configured to: control the communication interface to transmit the guide message to a user terminal device (the water bottle replacement notification signal is generated, and the generated water bottle replacement notification signal to the user terminal 20 by the order server, paragraphs of Lee).
Further, it is understood, claim 11 includes an intended use recitation, for example “…configured to...”. The applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner which a claimed apparatus is intended to be does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, the claims are directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
Regarding claims 12-13, it is noted that although the preamble of claims 12-13 is directed towards a method, the structure of the combined teachings discloses all the structure being provided in the method steps, thus the method is also anticipated by the combined teachings. If a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated or rendered obvious by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently or obviously perform the claimed process. Thus, the method, as claimed, would necessarily result from the normal operation of the apparatus. See MPEP 2112.02.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee as modified by Kim, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Brown et al (US 20210301985 A1, hereinafter Brown).
Regarding claim 5, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to teach wherein the processor is configured to: identify an execution state of a first function which is a function for supplying water to the water tank, and based on the execution state of the first function being changed, provide the guide message for the user for managing the water tank.
However, Brown teaches wherein the processor (controller 603) is configured to: identify an execution state of a first function (as described in paragraph 0099) which is a function for supplying water to the water tank (permeate may then be controllably passed from an output of the relays 682 to an input of the post filter 688 for subsequent use in various water appliances, or may be routed to the storage tank 690, paragraph 0099), and based on the execution state of the first function being changed (the controller 603 may send data to the controller 602 indicating that the storage tank 690 is full, paragraph 0099), provide the guide message for the user for managing the water tank (paragraph 0147 and as described in claim 14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus in the combined teachings to include wherein the processor is configured to: identify an execution state of a first function which is a function for supplying water to the water tank, and based on the execution state of the first function being changed, provide the guide message for the user for managing the water tank in view of the teachings of Brown in order to yield the predictable result of sending data to the controller that the storage tank is full.
Further, it is understood, claim 5 includes an intended use recitation, for example “…configured to...”. The applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner which a claimed apparatus is intended to be does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, the claims are directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee as modified by Kim, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Makoto et al (WO 2017061012 A1, hereinafter Makoto).
Regarding claim 10, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to teach further comprising: a display; and a speaker, wherein the processor is configured to: display the guide message through the display, and/or output the guide message in sound through the speaker.
However, Makoto teaches further comprising: a display (the notification unit 92 displays the water amount M in five stages, paragraph 0024); and a speaker (an audio speaker, paragraph 0024), wherein the processor (control unit 21) is configured to: display the guide message through the display (the notification unit 92 displays various types of information is illustrated, paragraph 0024), and/or output the guide message in sound through the speaker (the notification unit 92 may be configured to have a function of displaying various types of information and a function of notifying various types of information by voice or beep sound, paragraph 0024).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus in the combined teachings to include further comprising: a display; and a speaker, wherein the processor is configured to: display the guide message through the display, and/or output the guide message in sound through the speaker in view of the teachings of Makoto in order to yield the predictable result of having a function of displaying various types of information and a function of notifying various types of information by voice or beep sound.
Further, it is understood, claim 10 includes an intended use recitation, for example “…configured to...”. The applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner which a claimed apparatus is intended to be does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, the claims are directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to the Applicant’s argument that “Applicant respectfully submits that although Kim describes this as providing "detachment to the user", this is still simply indicators that certain instances have happened. There are not type of instructions for a user to manage the water tank provided or even suggested in Kim. Therefore, Kim does not cure the deficiencies of Lee regarding the features of claim 1 of the present application”, the Examiner disagrees. For clarity, Kim teaches that the mixing container 170 is installed on the mounting body 272 (YES in operation S311) and after a predetermined amount of time passes, for example, after preparing carbonated water is completed, when the mixing container 170 is sensed (operation S314) to be detached from the mounting body 272 (YES in operation S315), the processor 300 may generate a control signal corresponding to a received electrical signal and may transmit the generated control signal to at least one of the display portion 41, the lighting portion 42, and the sound output portion 43 of the user interface 40 (paragraph 0231), which is being interpreted as instructions to the user to detach mounting body 272 (S315) when the mixing container 170 is sensed (S314). Therefore, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4, 6-9 and 14-15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claims 3 and 14, the subject matter which is considered to distinguish from the closest prior art of record, You (EP 3406992 A1). The prior art of record when considered as a whole, alone, or in combination, neither anticipates nor renders obvious wherein the at least one processor is configured to: identify the temperature and humidity outside the electronic apparatus based on the signal output by the environment sensor, and based on at least one of the identified temperature being greater than a threshold temperature and the identified humidity being greater than a threshold humidity, change the first duration time to a third duration time being passed with the identified mounted state being a state that the water tank is not mounted, the third duration time being shorter than the first duration time". The closest prior art, You teaches refrigerator in which a detachable water tank having a simple structure, which is capable of supplying water to a dispenser and an ice maker, is provided and also provide a refrigerator in which a passage branched from a tank connection member connected to a water tank when the water tank is mounted is provided to supply water to a dispenser by a self-weight of the water and also supply water to an ice maker by a pump.
Regarding claim 6, the subject matter which is considered to distinguish from the closest prior art of record, Kim et al (US 20160238310 A1). The prior art of record when considered as a whole, alone, or in combination, neither anticipates nor renders obvious wherein the processor is configured to: based on the first function being turned-on and a first duration time being passed with the identified mounted state being a first state, provide a first guide message for the user for managing the water tank, based on the first function being turned-on and a second duration time being passed with the identified mounted state being a second state, provide a second guide message for the user for managing the water tank, and based on the first function being turned-off, provide the second guide message for the user for managing the water tank. The closest prior art, Kim teaches the processor 300 provided in the refrigerator 1 may determine that the mixing container 170 is mounted on the mounting body 272 based on the electrical signal transmitted from the sensor portion 279 and may control respective components for preparing of carbonated water in the mixing container 170. Then, purified water is supplied into the mixing container 170 and carbon dioxide is injected into the purified water, thereby preparing carbonated water.
Regarding claim 7, the subject matter which is considered to distinguish from the closest prior art of record, Kim et al (US 20160238310 A1). The prior art of record when considered as a whole, alone, or in combination, neither anticipates nor renders obvious "at least one processor is configured to: identify an execution state of a first function which is a function for supplying water from the second water tank to the first water tank, and provide a guide message for a user for managing the second water tank based on the execution state of the first function being changed". The closest prior art, Kim teaches the processor 300 provided in the refrigerator 1 may determine that the mixing container 170 is mounted on the mounting body 272 based on the electrical signal transmitted from the sensor portion 279 and may control respective components for preparing of carbonated water in the mixing container 170. Then, purified water is supplied into the mixing container 170 and carbon dioxide is injected into the purified water, thereby preparing carbonated water.
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 DARIO DELEON whose telephone number is (571)272-8687. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Jerry Daryl Fletcher can be reached at 571-270-5054. 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.
/DARIO ANTONIO DELEON/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights