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 .
Acknowledgement is made of the preliminary amendment filed on 9/26/2025. Accordingly, claims 1-14 and 20 are pending for consideration on the merits in this Office Action.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/22/2024, 1/17/2025 and 10/28/2025 were filed on or after the mailing date of the application. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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 3, 8 and 10 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.
Regarding Claim 3, the recitation of “…wherein the first operation comprises an operation for controlling a predetermined function of the home appliance, and the at least one processor is configured to: based on the home appliance being in the abnormal state, perform the first operation according to the user input received via the at least one key,” renders the claim unclear.
For example, claim 1 from which this claim depends recites that when the system is in the abnormal state the system performs in a second operation and not the first operation. Thus, there is a conflict in the claim.
Thus, one skilled in the art would not necessarily have the ability to ascertain the metes and bounds of the particular claim limitation.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as - - wherein the first operation comprises an operation for controlling a predetermined function of the home appliance, and the at least one processor is configured to: based on the home appliance being in the normal state, perform the first operation according to the user input received via the at least one key
Regarding Claim 8, the recitation of “…control the output interface to re-output the notification of the abnormal state of the home appliance when a preset first time elapses while the abnormal state is not resolved,” renders the claim unclear.
Additionally, the limitation does not appear to have antecedent basis with respect to the disclosure.
For example, if the abnormal state is not resolved then the alarm would simply be activated…the disclosure is silent to a scenario where the alarm is “re-output(ted).
Thus, one skilled in the art would not necessarily have the ability to ascertain the metes and bounds of the particular claim limitation.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Regarding Claim 10, the recitation of “…wherein the first operation is an operation not corresponding to a specific function of the home appliance,” renders the claim unclear because the limitation is recited without context.
For example, in the amendments to the specification, it is disclosed that ‘when an input is received from a dummy key in the normal mode, a first operation may be performed that does not correspond to a specific function of the refrigerator.’
Thus, one skilled in the art would not necessarily have the ability to ascertain the metes and bounds of the particular claim limitation.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
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.
Regarding Claim 1, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite “…at least one processor configured to: identify whether the home appliance is in an abnormal state, based on identifying the home appliance as being in the abnormal state, control the output interface to output a notification of the abnormal state of the home appliance, and based on the user input received via the at least one key while the notification is being output, control the output interface to turn off the notification of the abnormal state of the home appliance.”
A limitation that ‘…analyzes information, identifies a status of a home appliance and outputs a notification’ is a method that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the disclosure of a processor. That is, other than disclosing a processor, nothing in the claim precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. Additionally, the step of “identifying” the information is disclosed at such a high level of generality it necessarily can be performed by the mind.
For example, but for the disclosure of the processor, “identifying” in the context of the claims encompasses a user either mentally or with pen and paper, using the stored and received data to identify the state of the home appliance and generate a notification. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims are held to recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the clams recite the additional limitation of “… wherein the user input to the at least one key corresponds, when the home appliance is in a normal state, to a first operation of the home appliance, and corresponds, when the home appliance is in an abnormal state, to a second operation of the home appliance different from the first operation, the second operation comprising an operation for turning off the notification of the abnormal state of the home appliance.” These limitations define the functionality of the ‘at least one key’ and are not positively recited steps that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Furthermore, it is noted that mere instructions to apply an exception using a processor cannot provide an inventive concept. These additional elements do not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, thus the claims are held to be directed towards the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-12 are similarly drawn to the abstract idea and are therefore held to be rejected under 35 USC 101.
Regarding Claim 13, claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite “…identifying whether the home appliance is in an abnormal state; based on identifying the home appliance as being in an abnormal state, outputting a notification of the abnormal state of the home appliance; and based on a user input received via the at least one key while the home appliance is being output turning off the notification of the abnormal state of the home appliance.”
A limitation that ‘…analyzes information, identifies a status of a home appliance and outputs a notification’ is a method that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the disclosure of a processor. That is, other than disclosing a processor, nothing in the claim precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. Additionally, the step of “identifying” the information is disclosed at such a high level of generality it necessarily can be performed by the mind.
For example, but for the disclosure of the processor, “identifying” in the context of the claims encompasses a user either mentally or with pen and paper, using the stored and received data to identify the state of the home appliance and generate a notification. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims are held to recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the clams recite the additional limitation of “… wherein the user input to the at least one key corresponds, when the home appliance is in a normal state, to a first operation of the home appliance, and corresponds, when the home appliance is in an abnormal state, to a second operation of the home appliance different from the first operation, the second operation comprising an operation for turning off the notification of the abnormal state of the home appliance.” These limitations define the functionality of the ‘at least one key’ and are not positively recited steps that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Furthermore, it is noted that mere instructions to apply an exception using a processor cannot provide an inventive concept. These additional elements do not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, thus the claims are held to be directed towards the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 14 and 20 are similarly drawn to the abstract idea and are therefore held to be rejected under 35 USC 101.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 7, 13 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holmes et al. (US6802186) in view of Olsen et al. (US2011/0309938).
Regarding Claims 1, 13 and 20, Holmes teaches a home appliance [ fig 1; see also col 10, line 58-col 11, line 63 where the system has a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having recorded thereon a program to control a computer to perform the method] comprising: a memory including at least one instruction [col 10, lines 47-65]; an output interface [col 15, line 39-col 24, line 15; figs 15, 16 & 17];
a user interface including at least one key [see fig 15], the user interface being configured to receive a user input via the at least one key [col 15, line 39-col 24, line 15; figs 15, 16 & 17]; and a
at least one processor [370] configured to: identify whether the home appliance is in an abnormal state [col 21, lines 1-8], based on identifying the home appliance as being in
based on the user input received via the at least one key while the notification is being outpu
Holmes does not explicitly teach wherein the user input to the at least one key corresponds, when the home appliance is in a normal state, to a first operation of the home appliance, and corresponds, when the home appliance is in an abnormal state, to a second operation of the home appliance different from the first operation, the second operation comprising an operation for turning off the notification of the abnormal state of the home appliance.
However, Olsen teaches electronic circuits and methods for monitoring a refrigerator [0003] having wherein a user input to the at least one key [at least key 103] corresponds, when the home appliance is in a normal state, to a first operation of the home appliance [0044-0047; where when the refrigerator is not in the alarm state and in either a change temperature alarm parameter group or a temperature control parameter group the key 103 reduces the selected parameter], and corresponds, when the home appliance is in an abnormal state, to a second operation of the home appliance different from the first operation, the second operation comprising an operation for turning off the notification of the abnormal state of the home appliance [0035; where when the refrigerator is in the abnormal state i.e. alarm is active, the key 103 silences the alarm] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. reduces the numbers of button of keys needed to operate the system and thereby improves the system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Holmes to have wherein the user input to the at least one key corresponds, when the home appliance is in a normal state, to a first operation of the home appliance, and corresponds, when the home appliance is in an abnormal state, to a second operation of the home appliance different from the first operation, the second operation comprising an operation for turning off the notification of the abnormal state of the home appliance in view of the teachings of Olsen where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. reduces the numbers of button of keys needed to operate the system and thereby improves the system.
For clarity, in regard to Claim 13, the method as claimed is carried out during the normal operation of the apparatus of Holmes, as modified, above.
Regarding Claim 3, Holmes, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 above and Olsen teaches wherein the first operation comprises an operation for controlling a predetermined function of the home appliance, and the at least one processor is configured to: based on the home appliance being in the normal state, perform the first operation according to the user input received via the at least one key [0035; 0044-0047; As modified above, see the rejection of claim 1 for detailed discussion].
Regarding Claim 7, Holmes, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 above and Holmes teaches at least one door, wherein the at least one processor is configured to: based on the at least one door being open during a preset time or longer, identify that the home appliance is in the abnormal state [col 21, lines 1-8].
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holmes et al. (US6802186) and Olsen et al. (US2011/0309938) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhao et al. (CN218238034U).
Regarding Claim 2, Holmes, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 above but does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one processor is configured to: based on the notification of the abnormal state of the home appliance being turned off, control the output interface to output information indicating that the notification of the abnormal state of the home appliance is turned off.
However, Zhao teaches a monitoring device for a freezer [0001] having wherein a processor [see 0046] is configured to: based on the notification of the abnormal state of the freezer being turned off, control an output interface to output information indicating that the notification of the abnormal state of the freezer is turned off [0048; 0063] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. provide effective monitoring of the system [0006].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Holmes to have wherein the at least one processor is configured to: based on the notification of the abnormal state of the home appliance being turned off, control the output interface to output information indicating that the notification of the abnormal state of the home appliance is turned off in view of the teachings of Zhao where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. provide effective monitoring of the system.
Claim(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holmes et al. (US6802186) and Olsen et al. (US2011/0309938) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Deku et al. (CN101097790A).
Regarding Claim 4, Holmes, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 above but does not teach wherein the at least one processor is configured to: identify information about the home appliance, the information being stored the memory, and based on determining an abnormality in the identified information, identify that the home appliance is in the abnormal state.
However, Deku teaches a control panel for a wine cabinet [0001] having wherein at least one processor [see 0026] is configured to: identify information about the home appliance, the information being stored the memory, and based on determining an abnormality in the identified information, identify that the home appliance is in the abnormal state [0031-0033] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. providing a control panel having compact construction [0007].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Holmes to have wherein the at least one processor is configured to: identify information about the home appliance, the information being stored the memory, and based on determining an abnormality in the identified information, identify that the home appliance is in the abnormal state in view of the teachings of Deku where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. providing a control panel having compact construction.
Regarding Claim 5, Holmes, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 4 above and Deku teaches wherein the information about the home appliance includes information for determining an instruction for driving the home appliance, according to a function of the home appliance [0031-0033; where the information refers to a set temperature].
Regarding Claim 6, Holmes, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 4 above and Deku teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to: when the identified information about the home appliance is preset state information, or the identified information about the home appliance identified from at least one storage space among a plurality of spaces of the memory is different from the identified information about the home appliance identified from other storage spaces among the plurality of spaces, determine that there is an abnormality in the information about the.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holmes et al. (US6802186) and Olsen et al. (US2011/0309938) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mori (JPH02101370A).
Regarding Claim 8, Holmes, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 above and Holmes teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to control the output interface to turn off the notification of the abnormal state of the home appliance based on the user input received through the at least one key while the home appliance is identified as being in the abnormal state [col 21, lines 1-8].
Holmes does not explicitly teach controlling the output interface to re-output the notification of the abnormal state of the home appliance when a preset first time elapses while the abnormal state is not resolved.
However, Mori teaches a door open warning device for a refrigerator [0002] that controls an output interface [6] to re-output the notification of the abnormal state of the refrigerator when a preset first time elapses while the abnormal state is not resolved [0010] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. providing a door open warning system having redundancy [0013].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Holmes to control the output interface to re-output the notification of the abnormal state of the home appliance when a preset first time elapses while the abnormal state is not resolved in view of the teachings of Mori where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. providing a door open warning system having redundancy.
Regarding Claim 14, Holmes, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 13 above but does not teach re-outputting the notification based on the notification
However, Mori teaches a door open warning device for a refrigerator [0002] that re-outputs the notification based on the notification being turned off, when a preset time elapses or a predetermined situation occurs while the abnormal state is not resolved [0010] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. providing a door open warning system having redundancy [0013].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Holmes to re-output the notification based on the notification being turned off, when a preset time elapses or a predetermined situation occurs while the abnormal state is not resolved in view of the teachings of Mori where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. providing a door open warning system having redundancy.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holmes et al. (US6802186) and Olsen et al. (US2011/0309938) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Suemura et al. (JP2015183978A) and Mori (JPH02101370A).
Regarding Claims 9, Holmes, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 above but does not teach wherein the at least one processor is configured to: identify a time during which the user input received via the at least one key is maintained while the home appliance is identified as being in the abnormal state, when the time during which the user input received via the at least one key is maintained is greater than a preset second time, control the output interface to turn off the notification of the abnormal state of the home appliance, and control the output interface to re-output the notification of the abnormal state of the home appliance when a predetermined situation occurs while the abnormal state is not resolved, based on the notification being turned off.
However, Suemura teaches a refrigerator having an alarm display [0002] having wherein the at least one processor [see 0053] is configured to: identify a time during which the user input received via the at least one key is maintained while the home appliance is identified as being in the abnormal state, when the time during which the user input received via the at least one key is maintained is greater than a preset second time, control the output interface to turn off the notification of the abnormal state of the home appliance [0081-0094; figs 4 & 5; where at expiration of the time after the alarm output is turned on the alarm system is cancelled] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. providing where it is possible to avoid an erroneous warning display [0105].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Holmes to wherein the at least one processor is configured to: identify a time during which the user input received via the at least one key is maintained while the home appliance is identified as being in the abnormal state, when the time during which the user input received via the at least one key is maintained is greater than a preset second time, control the output interface to turn off the notification of the abnormal state of the home appliance in view of the teachings of Suemura where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. providing where it is possible to avoid an erroneous warning display.
Lastly, Mori teaches a door open warning device for a refrigerator [0002] that controls an output interface [6] to re-output the notification of the abnormal state of the refrigerator when a preset first time elapses while the abnormal state is not resolved [0010] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. providing a door open warning system having redundancy [0013].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Holmes to control the output interface to re-output the notification of the abnormal state of the home appliance when a preset first time elapses while the abnormal state is not resolved in view of the teachings of Mori where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. providing a door open warning system having redundancy.
Regarding Claim 10, Holmes, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 above but does not teach wherein the first operation is an operation not corresponding to a specific function of the home appliance, and
based on identifying the home appliance as being in the abnormal state, control the output interface
However, Suemura teaches a refrigerator having an alarm display [0002] having wherein the first operation is an operation not corresponding to a specific function of the home appliance [where in a normal mode the alarm release button 38 performs a non-operation], and
based on identifying the home appliance as being in the abnormal state, control the output interface to output information indicating that the at least one key is able to control the notification of the abnormal state of the home appliance, and based on a user input received via the at least one key while the home appliance is identified as being in the abnormal state, control the output interface to turn off the notification of the abnormal state of the home appliance [0081-0094; figs 4 & 5; where at expiration of the time after the alarm output is turned on the alarm system is cancelled via the alarm release button 38] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. providing where it is possible to avoid an erroneous warning display [0105].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Holmes to have wherein the first operation is an operation not corresponding to a specific function of the home appliance, and based on identifying the home appliance as being in the abnormal state, control the output interface to output information indicating that the at least one key is able to control the notification of the abnormal state of the home appliance, and based on a user input received via the at least one key while the home appliance is identified as being in the abnormal state, control the output interface to turn off the notification of the abnormal state of the home appliance in view of the teachings of Suemura where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. providing where it is possible to avoid an erroneous warning display.
Claim(s) 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holmes et al. (US6802186) and Olsen et al. (US2011/0309938) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Natalini et al. (US2002/0095269).
Regarding Claim 11, Holmes, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 above but does not teach a communication module, wherein the at least one processor is configured to: control the communication module to transmit, to an external device, the notification of the abnormal state of the home appliance, and control the communication module to receive, from the external device, a control command for turning off the notification of the abnormal state of the home appliance.
However, Natalini teaches a refrigerator [0004] having a communication module [37; 0028; fig 2], wherein the at least one processor [33; 0028] is configured to: control the communication module to transmit, to an external device [50], the notification of the abnormal state of the refrigerator [0028-0030], and control the communication module to receive, from the external device, a control command for turning off the notification of the abnormal state of the refrigerator [0028-0030; 0037-0040; 0044; 0045] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. providing a user with personalized oversight and care of the refrigerator and thereby improve the system [0015].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Holmes to have a communication module, wherein the at least one processor is configured to: control the communication module to transmit, to an external device, the notification of the abnormal state of the home appliance, and control the communication module to receive, from the external device, a control command for turning off the notification of the abnormal state of the home appliance in view of the teachings of Natalini where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. providing a user with personalized oversight and care of the refrigerator and thereby improve the system.
Regarding Claim 12, Holmes, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 above but does not teach a communication module, wherein the at least one processor is configured to: control the communication module to transmit, to an external device, a notification release history related to the notification of the abnormal state of the home appliance.
However, Natalini teaches a refrigerator [0004] having a communication module [37; 0028; fig 2], wherein the at least one processor [33; 0028] is configured to: control the communication module to transmit, to an external device [50], a notification release history related to the notification of the abnormal state of the refrigerator [0028-0030; 0037-0040; 0044; 0045] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. providing a user with personalized oversight and care of the refrigerator and thereby improve the system [0015].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Holmes to have a communication module, wherein the at least one processor is configured to: control the communication module to transmit, to an external device, a notification release history related to the notification of the abnormal state of the home appliance in view of the teachings of Natalini where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. providing a user with personalized oversight and care of the refrigerator and thereby improve the system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LARRY L FURDGE whose telephone number is (313)446-4895. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 6a-3p; F 6a-10a.
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 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.
/LARRY L FURDGE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights