DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
1. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/04/26 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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.
Claims 1-6, 9, 10, 12-18, 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Froehlich et al (USPAP 2018/0224151) in view of any one of Rhie et al (USPAP 2025/0075966), Jeong et al (USPAP 2020/0088463), Choi et al (USP 11,232,329) and Schroeder (USP 12,105,775), and further in view of Koo (USPAP 2016/0374175).
As to claim 1, Froehlich et al discloses, in figure 1,
a refrigerator system comprising:
a main body (the main body of refrigerator 12) and a door (the door of refrigerator 12) mounted to and movable with respect to the main body between an open position and a closed position (inherently the door of refrigerator 12 is mounted to and movable with respect to the main body thereof), the main body defining at least one storage compartment within a refrigerated enclosure when the door is in the closed position (inherently in Froehlich et al the main body of refrigerator 12 defines at least one storage compartment within a refrigerated enclosure when the door thereof is in the closed position);
an ambient light sensor (ambient light sensor 74) mounted to the main body or to the door and positioned to detect ambient light outside of the main body with the door in the closed position (although Froehlich et al's ambient light sensor 74 is illustrated as being located inside refrigerator 12, positioning it to detect ambient light outside of the main body with the door in the closed position would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, the reason being that it was old and well-known in the art before the effective filing date of applicant's invention to position an ambient light sensor to detect ambient light outside of the main body of a refrigerator with its door in the closed position, one example of this well-known concept being disclosed by Koo, supra, note what is indicated in paragraph [0037] of this reference, i.e., the ambient light sensor 110 is mounted in a liquid crystal display disposed on the front surface of the refrigerator or, alternatively, the ambient light sensor 110 can be mounted at the upper end or in the middle of the front surface or the side surface of the refrigerator, applicant should note that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to position Froehlich et al's ambient light sensor 74 to detect ambient light outside of the main body with the door in the closed position for the reason indicated in Koo's abstract, i.e., in order to prevent glare to a user who opens the refrigerator in the dark);
a light source (light source 72) mounted to the main body or to the door (note that light source 72 is mounted to the main body of refrigerator 12), the light source being configured to illuminate the refrigerated enclosure when the door is in the open position (note that Froelich et al’s light source 72 is configured to illuminate the refrigerated enclosure when the door of refrigerator 12 is in the open position);
at least one camera (camera 76) positioned to have a field of view directed away from an interior of the main body and including an entrance opening leading to the at least one storage compartment (although Froehlich et al's camera 76 is disclosed as being directed toward the interior of the main body of refrigerator 12, it would have been obvious to alternatively have camera 76 be directed away from the interior of the main body of refrigerator 12, the reason being that it was old and well-known in the art before the effective filing date of applicant's invention that a camera mounted on a refrigerator can alternatively be directed away from the interior thereof, four examples of this well-known concept being disclosed by Rhie et al--note camera 100 shown in figure 2, Jeong et al--note cameras 152 shown in figure 3, Choi et al--note camera 121 shown in figure 14, and Schroeder--see column 6, line 65 through column 7, line 64, applicant should note that any person having ordinary skill in the art would have easily recognized that a camera mounted to a refrigerator could obviously be directed toward the interior thereof, as taught by Froehlich et al, or alternatively directed toward the exterior thereof, as taught by Rhie et al, Jeong et al, Choi et al and Schroeder, i.e., either orientation of Froehlich et al's camera 76 would provide the ability for an individual to remotely monitor and/or keep track of the items which have been placed in the refrigerator and the items which have been removed from the refrigerator), the at least one camera being configured to capture images of an item being loaded into or being removed from the at least one storage compartment (in figure 1 of Froehlich et al as modified by any one of Rhie et al, Jeong et al, Choi et al and Schroeder, camera 76 can obviously be used to capture images of an item being loaded into or being removed from the at least one storage compartment of refrigerator 12); and
at least one computing device (the inherent computing device within processor 43, see figure 8 of Froehlich et al) in operable connection with the at least one camera, the ambient light sensor, and the light source (note that the computing device within processor 43 of Froehlich et al will inherently be in operable connection with camera 76, ambient light sensor 74, and light source 72), the at least one computing device being configured to:
determine an ambient light parameter outside of the main body based on signals received from the ambient light sensor (the inherent operation of the above-noted computing device within processor 43 of Froehlich et al as modified above); and
control at least one of the light source and the at least one camera based on the ambient light parameter that has been determined (again the inherent operation of the above-noted computing device within processor 43 of Froehlich et al as modified above).
As to claim 2, as indicated in the previous office actions, Froelich et al’s computing device will inherently cooperate with light source 72 in order to control the quantity or quality of light generated by the light source based on the ambient light parameter that has been determined by the computing device.
As to claim 3, as indicated in the previous office actions, although Froehlich et al does not indicate that the quantity of light generated by light source 72 is measured in candela, lumens or footcandles, such would have been obvious to any person having ordinary skill in the art, the reason being that it was old and well-known in the art before the effective filing date of applicant's invention that the quantity of light generated by a light source is typically measured in candela, lumens or footcandles, of which fact official notice is taken by the examiner.
As to claim 4, as indicated in the previous office actions, this limitation also would have been obvious to any person having ordinary skill in the art who would have easily recognized that if Froelich et al’s ambient light sensor 74 detects a low ambient light level in the room where the refrigerator 12 is located, the brightness level of the light source 72 should be increased in order to improve an individual’s ability to see what is inside the refrigerator.
As to claims 5 and 6, as indicated in the previous office actions, the limitations of these two claims would have been obvious to any person having ordinary skill in the art, the reason being that it was also old and well-known in the art before the effective filing date of applicant's invention that the quality of light generated by a light source within a refrigerator can include changing either the color of the light or the color temperature of the light, see paragraph [0102] of Miller et al (USPAP 2018/0192791), as one example of this well-known concept, note that this paragraph indicates that the light source inside the refrigerator can be controlled remotely by a user such that its light intensity and light color can be controlled (and this disclosure would motivate any person having ordinary skill in the art to make the color of the light source in Froehlich et al adjustable, as per claim 6, so as to enable the individual to set the light color at any desired color at any given time), and also note that this reference indicates that the light source can have its intensity controlled, its light color controlled, etc, note that any person having ordinary skill in the art would have easily recognized that Miller et al’s use of the word "etc" would suggest to any person having ordinary skill in the art that the color temperature of the light source could also be controlled by the individual, in addition to changing its intensity and color (as per claim 5).
As to claims 9, 10, 12 and 13, as indicated in the previous office actions, the limitations of these claims also would have been obvious to any person having ordinary skill in the art, the reason being that it was also old and well-known in the art before the effective filing date of applicant's invention that an ambient light sensor can be used to detect different colors of light for red, blue and green light, respectively, two examples of this well-known concept being disclosed by Ku et al (USPAP 2024/0053195) and Siminovitch et al (USPAP 2016/0192459) note paragraph [0017] of the former and the abstract of the latter--note that Ku et al discloses in paragraph [0017] that the ambient light sensor is used to detect various colors of the ambient light, and note that Siminovitch et al discloses that the spectral illumination of a light source is detected, i.e., this would suggest to any person having ordinary skill in the art that light intensity, light color, and color temperature of the light could be detected in Froehlich et al.
As to claim 14, as indicated in the previous office actions, the limitations of this claim would have been obvious to any person having ordinary skill in the art, the reason being that it was also old and well-known in the art before the effective filing date of applicant's invention that a light source of a refrigerator (such as light source 72 of refrigerator 12 shown in figure 1 of Froehlich et al) is typically responsive to the output of a door angle sensor configured to determine an angle of the door with respect to the main body of the refrigerator when the door is in the open position, one example of this well-known concept being disclosed by Hong et al (USPAP 2024/0377121), see paragraphs [0362] and [0369] of this reference, the motivation to use this teaching in Froehlich et al being to only perform the ambient light detection when the refrigerator door has been opened a sufficient amount so that the ambient light around the refrigerator can be detected by the ambient light sensor 74.
As to claims 15-18, as indicated in the previous office actions, the limitations of these method claims are rejected using the same analysis as set forth above with regard to system claims 1-6, 9, 10 and 12-14, i.e., inherently in Froehlich et al, a session will be started in response to a start trigger signal when the door of Froelich et al’s refrigerator 12 is opened, a start trigger signal will be received by the Froehlich et al’s computing device and then ambient light sensor 74, when mounted to the main body of refrigerator 12 (obvious, as noted above), will measure the ambient light around refrigerator 12, and in response thereto, the computing device will control light source 72 and camera 76. As indicated in the previous office actions, it was old and well-known in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s invention that the control aperture, shutter speed or gain of a camera, such as Froehlich et al’s camera 76, can be controlled based on detected ambient light levels, one example of this well-known concept being disclosed by Ma et al (USPAP 2016/0217417), note paragraph [0099] of this reference which indicates that camera control parameters can be adjusted based on detected ambient light levels, i.e., any person having ordinary skill in the art would understand the disclosure by Ma et al of adjusting camera control parameters as meaning any well-known camera control parameters, such as aperture opening, shutter speed and gain of the camera, the motivation for adjusting such camera control parameters in Froehlich et al being to enable improved imaging by the camera. As to the new limitations added to claim 15, i.e., feeding the ambient light parameter as an input parameter into a machine learning model and controlling aperture, shutter speed or gain of a camera using the machine learning model, these new limitations do not distinguish patentably over Froehlich et al as modified above, the reason being that it was old and well-known in the art before the effective filing date of applicant's invention to feed and ambient light parameter as an input parameter into a machine learning model and controlling a camera in response thereto, two examples of this well-known concept being disclosed by Guestrin et al (USPAP 2020/0193328) and Abari et al (USPAP 2019/0340924), note what is indicated in paragraphs [0058] and [0060] of the former, and what is indicated in paragraph [0024] of the latter. The motivation for using such a teaching by these two additional references in the refrigerator lighting control system of Froehlich et al is to improve the quality of the images captured by Froehlich et al's camera 76 in low lighting conditions, i.e., when the quality of the images captured by camera 76 is reduced due to such low lighting conditions, a machine learning model such as that disclosed by Guestrin et al or Abari et al can obviously be used in Froehlich et al for the purpose of improving the quality of such images.
As to claim 21, the limitations of this claim are rejected using the same analysis as set forth above in the rejection of claim 1, in particular the new limitations added to claim 1 regarding the ambient light sensor being positioned to detect ambient light outside of the main door of the refrigerator with the door thereof in the closed position. Applicant should also note that one of ordinary skill in the art also would have easily recognized that Froehlich et al's light source 72 inside refrigerator 12 could obviously be controlled by Froehlich et al's computing device in response to the output of ambient light sensor 74, i.e., it was also old and well-known in the art before the effective filing date of applicant's invention to control a light source located inside a refrigerator in response to the output of an ambient light sensor using a machine learning model, of which fact official notice is taken by the examiner.
As to claim 22, the limitations of this claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the same reason noted above in the rejection of claim 1, i.e., although Froehlich et al's ambient light sensor 74 is disclosed as being located inside refrigerator 12, positioning it to detect ambient light outside of the main body with the door in the closed position would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because that it was old and well-known in the art before the effective filing date of applicant's invention to position an ambient light sensor to detect ambient light outside of the main body of a refrigerator with its door in the closed position, one example of this well-known concept being disclosed by Koo, supra, note what is indicated in paragraph [0037] of this reference, i.e., the ambient light sensor 110 is disclosed as being mounted in a liquid crystal display disposed on the front surface of the refrigerator or, alternatively, the ambient light sensor 110 is disclosed as being mounted at the upper end or in the middle of the front surface or the side surface of the refrigerator, and note further that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to position Froehlich et al's ambient light sensor to detect ambient light outside of the main body with the door in the closed position for the reason indicated in Koo's abstract, i.e., in order to prevent glare to a user who opens the refrigerator in the dark).
Conclusion
3. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH B WELLS whose telephone number is (571)272-1757. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5pm.
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, REGIS J BETSCH, can be reached at (571)270-7101. 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.
/KENNETH B WELLS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836 May 15, 2026
Prosecution Insights