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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 05/20/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection(s) set forth in the previous office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections for claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the arguments are directed towards amended claim language, addressed on new grounds of rejection below.
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 taught 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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, 4-7, 17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kara et al. (US 20220095883) (hereinafter Kara) in view of Park et al. (US 20170000292) (hereinafter Park), further in view of Abdoo et al. (US 20190128611) (hereinafter Abdoo).
Regarding claim 1, Kara teaches A door for an appliance, the door comprising:
an image sensing device disposed in the door body, wherein the image sensing device comprises: a sensing housing that defines an installation space therein, an image sensor disposed in the installation space and configured to acquire an image of the storage space, and a sensor protective cover disposed at the sensing housing, the sensor protective cover being disposed between the image sensor and the storage space, wherein the door body comprises a door frame and a door panel coupled to the door frame, the door panel comprising a plurality of panels, and (see Kara figures 4-7 and paragraphs 65-74 regarding an image sensor in an appliance door body with a door frame and a plurality of panels, with a general compartment in the door that is the sensing housing with an installation space between the plurality of panels where the image sensor is in, where the image sensor takes images of the storage space from behind a protective cover- the camera piece itself is interpreted as the sensing housing with an installation space where there is a literal image sensor [i.e. CMOS or any other sensor that would be obviously required in order for the camera to function as a camera] within the camera interpreted as the image sensor required by the claim), and
However, Kara does not explicitly teach a door design as needed for the limitations of claim 1.
Park, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a door body configured to be disposed at a front of a storage space of the appliance (see Park figure 4 and paragraph 105 regarding a door frame and door panel with window at a central portion, and a defined region for placement of a camera- in combination with Kara, noting that Park is meant to teach only the oven environment, window panel, and installation area, the camera of Kara can be placed for an oven at an installation region surrounding the window); and
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the teaching of Kara to include the teaching of Park so that in combination with Kara, noting that Park is meant to teach only the oven environment, window panel, and installation area, the camera of Kara can be placed for an oven at an installation region surrounding the window.
One would be motivated to combine these teachings in order to apply the teachings of Kara to other home appliance environments that need monitoring (see Park figure 4 and paragraph 105).
However, Kara and Park does not explicitly teach a panel arrangement as needed for the limitations of claim 1.
Abdoo, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches wherein the sensing housing, the image sensor, and the sensor protective cover are disposed between the plurality of panels (see Abdoo paragraph 19 where a cover of multiple layers for an oven is disposed between an interior panel and a camera that is already disposed between a plurality of panels making all of the sensing housing, image sensor, and cover disposed between panels- in combination with Kara and Park, the sensing housing, image sensor, and cover may be disposed between the plurality of panels).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the teaching of Kara and Park to include the teaching of Abdoo so that in combination with Kara and Park, the sensing housing, image sensor, and cover may be disposed between the plurality of panels.
One would be motivated to combine these teachings in order to enhance the protection of an oven camera (see Abdoo paragraph 19).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Kara, Park, and Abdoo teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Kara, Park, and Abdoo teaches wherein the sensing housing comprises: a first housing that accommodates the image sensor; and a second housing that is coupled to the first housing, wherein the sensor protective cover is disposed at the second housing, and wherein the image sensor and the sensor protective cover face each other in a state in which the first housing and the second housing are coupled to each other (see Kara figures 4-7 and paragraphs 65-74 regarding an image sensor in an appliance door body with a plurality of panels, with a general compartment in the door that is the sensing housing with an installation space between the plurality of panels where the image sensor is in, where the image sensor takes images of the storage space from behind a protective cover- the first housing is the panel that the image sensor is attached to and the second housing is the one with the cover disposed on it, and they are coupled to one another by virtue of being panels on a door).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Kara, Park, and Abdoo teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 4, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Kara, Park, and Abdoo teaches wherein the second housing comprises a sensor cover that covers the image sensor, the sensor cover defining a sensor hole, and wherein the sensor protective cover covers the sensor hole (see Kara figures 4-7 and paragraphs 65-74 regarding an image sensor in an appliance door body with a plurality of panels, with a general compartment in the door that is the sensing housing with an installation space between the plurality of panels where the image sensor is in, where the image sensor takes images of the storage space from behind a protective cover- the first housing is the panel that the image sensor is attached to and the second housing is the one with the cover disposed on it, and they are coupled to one another by virtue of being panels on a door- the second housing covers the image sensor and fills a hole in the second housing door panel).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Kara, Park, and Abdoo teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 4, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Kara, Park, and Abdoo teaches wherein the first housing comprises: a sensor mounting fence that covers the image sensor; and a sensor holding hook that protrudes from the sensor mounting fence and is configured to catch and fix an end portion of the image sensor (see Kara figures 4-7 and paragraphs 65-74 regarding an image sensor in an appliance door body with a plurality of panels, with a general compartment in the door that is the sensing housing with an installation space between the plurality of panels where the image sensor is in, where the image sensor takes images of the storage space from behind a protective cover- figure 7 illustrates what may be broadly interpreted as a fence covering the image sensor from the rear, and what may be interpreted as a hook protrudes from it to mount to the image sensor).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Kara, Park, and Abdoo teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 6, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Kara, Park, and Abdoo teaches wherein the sensor mounting fence comprises a sensor inclination guide that supports the image sensor and is in contact with a surface of the image sensor, the sensor inclination guide being configured to orient the image sensor in a downwardly inclined direction toward a lower portion of the storage space (see Kara figures 4-7 and paragraphs 65-74 regarding an image sensor in an appliance door body with a plurality of panels, with a general compartment in the door that is the sensing housing with an installation space between the plurality of panels where the image sensor is in, where the image sensor takes images of the storage space from behind a protective cover- figure 7 illustrates what may be broadly interpreted as a fence covering the image sensor from the rear, and what may be interpreted as a hook protrudes from it to mount to the image sensor and allows the sensor to adjust inclination).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Kara, Park, and Abdoo teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Kara, Park, and Abdoo teaches wherein the door panel has a window defined at a central portion thereof, wherein the door panel defines installation regions that are disposed between the plurality of panels and surround at least a portion of an edge of the window, and wherein the image sensing device is disposed at one or more of the installation regions (see Park figure 4 and paragraph 105 regarding a door frame and door panel with window at a central portion, and a defined region for placement of a camera- in combination with Kara, noting that Park is meant to teach only the oven environment, window panel, and installation area, the camera of Kara can be placed for an oven at an installation region surrounding the window).
One would be motivated to combine these teachings in order to apply the teachings of Kara to other home appliance environments that need monitoring (see Park figure 4 and paragraph 105).
Regarding claim 20, Kara teaches An appliance comprising:
a cabinet that defines a storage space therein; and a door connected to the cabinet and configured to open and close the storage space (see Kara figures 4-7 and paragraphs 65-74 regarding an image sensor in an appliance door body with a door frame and a plurality of panels, with a general compartment in the door that is the sensing housing with an installation space between the plurality of panels where the image sensor is in, where the image sensor takes images of the storage space from behind a protective cover- the camera piece itself is interpreted as the sensing housing with an installation space where there is a literal image sensor [i.e. CMOS or any other sensor that would be obviously required in order for the camera to function as a camera] within the camera interpreted as the image sensor required by the claim), wherein the door comprises:
a door panel that is coupled to the door frame and comprises a plurality of panels (see Kara figures 4-7 and paragraphs 65-74 regarding an image sensor in an appliance door body with a door frame and a plurality of panels, with a general compartment in the door that is the sensing housing with an installation space between the plurality of panels where the image sensor is in, where the image sensor takes images of the storage space from behind a protective cover- the camera piece itself is interpreted as the sensing housing with an installation space where there is a literal image sensor [i.e. CMOS or any other sensor that would be obviously required in order for the camera to function as a camera] within the camera interpreted as the image sensor required by the claim),
an image sensing device disposed between the plurality of panels, wherein the image sensing device comprises: a sensing housing that defines an installation space therein, the sensing housing comprising a first housing and a second housing that are coupled to each other, an image sensor disposed in the installation space and configured to acquire an image of the storage space, and a sensor protective cover disposed at a front of the image sensor (see Kara figures 4-7 and paragraphs 65-74 regarding an image sensor in an appliance door body with a door frame and a plurality of panels, with a general compartment in the door that is the sensing housing with an installation space between the plurality of panels where the image sensor is in, where the image sensor takes images of the storage space from behind a protective cover- the camera piece itself is interpreted as the sensing housing with an installation space where there is a literal image sensor [i.e. CMOS or any other sensor that would be obviously required in order for the camera to function as a camera] within the camera interpreted as the image sensor required by the claim).
However, Kara does not explicitly teach the door design as needed for the limitations of claim 20.
Park, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a door frame disposed at a front of the storage space, the door frame defining a through part at a central portion thereof (see Park figure 4 and paragraph 105 regarding a door frame and door panel with window at a central portion, and a defined region for placement of a camera- in combination with Kara, noting that Park is meant to teach only the oven environment, window panel, and installation area, the camera of Kara can be placed for an oven at an installation region surrounding the window),
the door panel having a window that faces the through part and allows the storage space to be visible through the through part (see Park figure 4 and paragraph 105 regarding a door frame and door panel with window at a central portion, and a defined region for placement of a camera- in combination with Kara, noting that Park is meant to teach only the oven environment, window panel, and installation area, the camera of Kara can be placed for an oven at an installation region surrounding the window), and
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the teaching of Kara to include the teaching of Park so that in combination with Kara, noting that Park is meant to teach only the oven environment, window panel, and installation area, the camera of Kara can be placed for an oven at an installation region surrounding the window.
One would be motivated to combine these teachings in order to apply the teachings of Kara to other home appliance environments that need monitoring (see Park figure 4 and paragraph 105).
However, Kara and Park does not explicitly teach a panel arrangement as needed for the limitations of claim 20.
Abdoo, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches wherein the sensing housing, the image sensor, and the sensor protective cover are disposed between the plurality of panels (see Abdoo paragraph 19 where a cover of multiple layers for an oven is disposed between an interior panel and a camera that is already disposed between a plurality of panels making all of the sensing housing, image sensor, and cover disposed between panels- in combination with Kara and Park, the sensing housing, image sensor, and cover may be disposed between the plurality of panels).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the teaching of Kara and Park to include the teaching of Abdoo so that in combination with Kara and Park, the sensing housing, image sensor, and cover may be disposed between the plurality of panels.
One would be motivated to combine these teachings in order to enhance the protection of an oven camera (see Abdoo paragraph 19).
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kara et al. (US 20220095883) (hereinafter Kara) in view of Park et al. (US 20170000292) (hereinafter Park), further in view of Abdoo et al. (US 20190128611) (hereinafter Abdoo), further in view of Weber et al. (US 20230160576) (hereinafter Weber).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Kara, Park, and Abdoo teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
However, the combination of Kara, Park, and Abdoo does not explicitly teach a cover arrangement as needed for the limitations of claim 2.
Weber, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches wherein the sensor protective cover is disposed in an inclined direction with respect to the sensing housing (see Weber figure 2 and paragraphs 60-62 regarding cover inclined against sensing housing and the cover and sensor are parallel with each other- in combination with Kara, the cover may be inclined against the sensing housing and the cover and sensor are parallel with each other).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the combination of Kara, Park, and Abdoo to include the teaching of Weber so that in combination with Kara, the cover may be inclined against the sensing housing and the cover and sensor are parallel with each other.
One would be motivated to combine these teachings in order to provide for an enhanced view of an internal viewing area of home appliance (see Weber figure 2 and paragraphs 60-62).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Kara, Park, and Abdoo teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
However, the combination of Kara, Park, and Abdoo does not explicitly teach a cover arrangement as needed for the limitations of claim 3.
Weber, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches wherein the image sensor and the sensor protective cover are disposed in an inclined direction and in parallel to each other (see Weber figure 2 and paragraphs 60-62 regarding cover inclined against sensing housing and the cover and sensor are parallel with each other- in combination with Kara, the cover may be inclined against the sensing housing and the cover and sensor are parallel with each other).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the combination of Kara, Park, and Abdoo to include the teaching of Weber so that in combination with Kara, the cover may be inclined against the sensing housing and the cover and sensor are parallel with each other.
One would be motivated to combine these teachings in order to provide for an enhanced view of an internal viewing area of home appliance (see Weber figure 2 and paragraphs 60-62).
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kara et al. (US 20220095883) (hereinafter Kara) in view of Park et al. (US 20170000292) (hereinafter Park), further in view of Abdoo et al. (US 20190128611) (hereinafter Abdoo), further in view of Stork genannt Wersborg (US 20180184668) (hereinafter Stork genannt Wersborg).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Kara, Park, and Abdoo teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 17, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
However, the combination of Kara, Park, and Abdoo does not explicitly teach a lighting device as needed for the limitations of claim 18.
Stork genannt Wersborg, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches wherein the door body further comprises a lighting device, the lighting device being disposed at the image sensing device or separated from the image sensing device (see Stork gennant Wersborg paragraphs 72 and 84 regarding oven interior facing camera with LEDs surrounding the image sensor so that the lighting device and the sensing device would be disposed at a same height from the bottom of the storage space- in combination with Kara, the camera may have LEDs surrounding the image sensor so that the lighting device and the sensing device would be disposed at a same height from the bottom of the storage space).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the combination of Kara, Park, and Abdoo to include the teaching of Stork genannt Wersborg so that in combination with Kara, the camera may have LEDs surrounding the image sensor so that the lighting device and the sensing device would be disposed at a same height from the bottom of the storage space.
One would be motivated to combine these teachings in order to illuminate a viewing area of a home appliance (see Stork gennant Wersborg paragraphs 72 and 84).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Kara, Park, Abdoo, and Stork genannt Wersborg teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 18, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Kara, Park, Abdoo, and Stork genannt Wersborg teaches wherein the lighting device and the image sensing device are disposed between the plurality of panels and disposed at a same height from a bottom of the storage space (see Stork gennant Wersborg paragraphs 72 and 84 regarding oven interior facing camera with LEDs surrounding the image sensor so that the lighting device and the sensing device would be disposed at a same height from the bottom of the storage space- in combination with Kara, the camera may have LEDs surrounding the image sensor so that the lighting device and the sensing device would be disposed at a same height from the bottom of the storage space).
One would be motivated to combine these teachings in order to illuminate a viewing area of a home appliance (see Stork gennant Wersborg paragraphs 72 and 84).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 8-16 is/are 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 a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 8 contains the limitations regarding a door of a home appliance with a camera in an installation space in the door that is a sensing housing where the sensing housing has a first and a second housing that are coupled to each other, the first housing accommodates the image sensor, and a sensor cover is disposed at the second housing, and the second housing has a cover holding arm that supports a first end of the protective cover, a pair of cover guide ends that support opposite side surfaces of the sensor protective cover, and a cover holding end that supports a second end portion of the sensor protective cover, the second end portion being disposed at a position opposite to the first end portion. At the time of the effective filing date of the application, these limitations had not been fully anticipated and it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine elements of the prior art to meet this limitation. The claim(s) depending on these claim(s) contain allowable subject matter for the reasons concerning these claim(s).
The closest prior art, Kara et al. (US 20220095883), Park et al. (US 20170000292), Weber et al. (US 20230160576), Stork genannt Wersborg (US 20180184668), Beifuss et al. (US 20170188416), Pool III (US 20210102755), Werner et al. (US 20220187008), Luckhardt et al. (US 20170208652), Park et al. (US 20170261213), Hu (US 20210002942), Demele et al. (US 11035166), Watanabe et al. (US 10653024), Park et al. (US 10398260) either singularly or in combination fail to anticipate or render obvious the above described limitations. While the prior art teaches different covers for cameras that view inside a home appliance, the prior art is silent with regard to a door of a home appliance with a camera in an installation space in the door that is a sensing housing where the sensing housing has a first and a second housing that are coupled to each other, the first housing accommodates the image sensor, and a sensor cover is disposed at the second housing, and the second housing has a cover holding arm that supports a first end of the protective cover, a pair of cover guide ends that support opposite side surfaces of the sensor protective cover, and a cover holding end that supports a second end portion of the sensor protective cover, the second end portion being disposed at a position opposite to the first end portion. Notably, the best prior art references, such as Kara, Weber, and Park, teach away from such an arrangement of a cover where there are as many discrete parts for fastening the cover to the housing surface to protect the camera from the appliance interior, and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the cover mechanisms of Kara, Weber, and Park are designed with broader, fewer parts in order to maximize the seal between a camera and volatile interior such as that of an oven or dishwasher. One of ordinary skill wouldn’t be motivated to combine a generic transparent cover holding mechanism found in other arts, as other fields of endeavor do not consider imaging in to volatile spaces behind a cover in the same way as that of home appliance cameras. Therefore, at the time of the effective filing date of the application, these limitations had not been fully anticipated and it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine elements of the prior art to meet this limitation.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Matthew D Kim whose telephone number is (571)272-3527. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:30am - 5:30pm EST.
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, Joseph Ustaris can be reached at (571) 272-7383. 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.
/MATTHEW DAVID KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483
Prosecution Insights