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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “a restricted zone” and “a position marker” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “39” has been used to designate both plurality of zones and a restricted zone. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-20 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.
Claim 1 recites “obtaining, via the communications device, a user signal corresponding to one or more of the plurality of zones at the refrigerator appliance, wherein the user signal correlates one or more of the plurality of zones as a restricted zone” which renders the claim indefinite because it unclear how the user signal correlates to a restricted zone or how the plurality of zones is correlated to the restricted zone. Since there is no way of determining what are the metes and bounds of the claim, as best understood, if the prior art comprises the claimed structure, it will be presumed that the system can operate as intended.
Claim 12 recites “obtaining, via a communications device, a user signal corresponding to one or more of the plurality of zones at the refrigerator appliance, wherein the user signal correlates one or more of a plurality of zones at a cooled compartment of a cabinet as a restricted zone” which renders the claim indefinite because it unclear how the user signal correlates to a restricted zone or how the plurality of zones is correlated to the restricted zone. Since there is no way of determining what are the metes and bounds of the claim, as best understood, if the prior art comprises the claimed structure, it will be presumed that the system can operate as intended
Claims 2-11 and 13-20 are rejected based on dependency from a rejected claim.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (US 20180135910) in view of Shoenfeld (US 20070244598).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches a refrigerator appliance (fig. 2), the refrigerator appliance comprising: a cabinet (10) forming a cooled compartment (22), wherein the cooled compartment comprises a plurality of zones (40, 50), wherein plurality of zones comprise an articulatable feature (shelf 40, drawer 50); a sensor (130) configured to determine a change in position (paragraph 0156, 0364) of the articulatable feature at a respective zone of the plurality of zones (fig. 32-33b); a computing device (100) comprising a processor (paragraph 0752-0753) and a communications device (130), the computing device operably coupled to the sensor (100 includes 130, paragraph 0156), wherein the computing device is configured to perform operations, the operations comprising: obtaining, via the communications device, a user signal (sensed, paragraph 0371) corresponding to one or more of the plurality of zones (paragraph 0372, figs. 32-33b) at the refrigerator appliance, wherein the user signal correlates one or more of the plurality of zones (paragraph 0372); obtaining, from the sensor, a sensor signal (marker, paragraph 0376-0383) corresponding to a position of the articulatable feature (figs. 32-33a); generating a position marker (termination of marker, paragraph 0411) corresponding to the position of the articulatable feature (fig. 38); comparing the sensor signal to the position marker to determine a change in the position of the articulatable feature (paragraph 0411); and transmitting, to a remote device (14), a communications signal (provided to the user, paragraph 0419) corresponding to the change in the position of the articulatable feature but fails to explicitly teach wherein the user signal correlates one or more of the plurality of zones as a restricted zone; obtaining, from the sensor, a sensor signal corresponding to a position of the articulatable feature at the restricted zone; generating a position marker corresponding to the position of the articulatable feature at the restricted zone; comparing the sensor signal to the position marker to determine a change in the position of the articulatable feature at the restricted zone; and transmitting, to a remote device, a communications signal corresponding to the change in the position of the articulatable feature at the restricted zone.
However, Shoenfeld teaches the user signal (programed to alert, paragraph 0039) correlates one or more of the plurality of zones as a restricted zone (drawer has been left open, paragraph 0039); obtaining, from the sensor (proximity sensor, paragraph 0039), a sensor signal (alert, paragraph 0039) corresponding to a position of the articulatable feature at the restricted zone (drawer have been left open, paragraph 0039); generating a position marker (longer than pre-selected time, paragraph 0039) corresponding to the position of the articulatable feature at the restricted zone (drawer have been left open longer than pre-selected time, paragraph 0039); comparing the sensor signal to the position marker to determine a change in the position (longer than preselected time, paragraph 0039) of the articulatable feature at the restricted zone; and transmitting, to a remote device (20, 22 or 100), a communications signal (status of drawer being open, paragraph 0039) corresponding to the change in the position of the articulatable feature at the restricted zone to provide alerts when a drawer has been left open and to track access.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the refrigerator appliance of Kim to include the user signal correlates one or more of the plurality of zones as a restricted zone; obtaining, from the sensor, a sensor signal corresponding to a position of the articulatable feature at the restricted zone; generating a position marker corresponding to the position of the articulatable feature at the restricted zone; comparing the sensor signal to the position marker to determine a change in the position of the articulatable feature at the restricted zone; and transmitting, to a remote device, a communications signal corresponding to the change in the position of the articulatable feature at the restricted zone in view of the teachings of Shoenfeld to provide alerts when a drawer has been left open and to track access.
Regarding claim 2, the combined teachings teach the user signal comprises a period of time (pre-selected time, paragraph 0039 of Shoenfeld) over which the one or more of the plurality of zones as the restricted zone.
Regarding claim 3, the combined teachings teach the articulatable feature comprises a drawer (50 of Kim) at the cooled compartment.
Regarding claim 4, the combined teachings teach the articulatable feature comprises a foodstuff (food items, paragraph 0120 of Kim) at a drawer (50 of Kim) at the cooled compartment.
Regarding claim 5, the combined teachings teach the sensor comprises a proximity sensor (proximity sensor, paragraph 0039 of Shoenfeld).
Regarding claim 6, the combined teachings teach the sensor comprises an imaging device (70 of Kim).
Regarding claim 7, the combined teachings teach the communications signal is a visual signal (display, paragraph 0417-0418 of Kim) an audio signal (alert, paragraph 0039 of Shoenfeld).
Regarding claim 8, the combined teachings teach the operations comprising: obtaining an initial sensor signal (understood a degree of opening being determined would have an initial or first capturing, not exposed, paragraph 0433, 0435) corresponding to an initial position of the articulatable feature (one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the sensor of Shoenfeld or marker of Kim would have an initial position of being closed).
Regarding claim 9, the combined teachings teach the operations comprising: obtaining one or more second sensor signals (110 of Kim) corresponding to an opening of a door (S10, fig. 28 of Kim) to the respective cooled compartment.
Regarding claim 10, the combined teachings teach generating and superimposing the position marker onto the initial sensor signal and the one or more second sensor signals (paragraph 0516-0526 of Kim).
Regarding claim 11, the combined teachings teach the operations comprising: comparing an initial position of the position marker corresponding to the initial sensor signal (paragraph 0516-0526 of Kim) to a second position of the position marker (paragraph 0516-0526 of Kim) corresponding to the second sensor signal (paragraph 0516-0526 of Kim) to determine a change of the articulatable feature (paragraph 0516-0526 of Kim).
Regarding claims 12-20, it is noted that although the preamble of the claims is directed towards a method, the structure of the combined teachings disclose 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH J MARTIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3840. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-3:00 CT pm M-F.
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.
/ELIZABETH J MARTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763