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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 29 is objected to because of the following informalities: there should be a period at the end of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 29 is 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.
The absence of a period at the end of the claim also renders the claim indefinite, since it is unclear whether or not further limitations are intended for the 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) 15-19, 22, and 25-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon et al. (US 2024/0430121 A1 – hereinafter “Kwon et al. ‘121”) in view of Partee et al. (US 10393415 B1).
As per claim 15, Kwon et al. ‘121 disclose a communication module for a household appliance 200, the communication module being configured as a sensor hub (sensor module 230) that is configured for processing digital signals and for generating a signal for a communication bus (see Fig. 4 re. sensor module 230 configured to both send and receive digital signals with communication bus 250. In addition, Kwon et al. ‘121 disclose which comprises a bus interface for connecting the communication module to a communication bus outside said communication module (Fig. 4, etc.: see connection line interfacing between module 230 and bus 250, which is outside of module 230).
Kwon does not explicitly teach the sensor hub processing digital signals. However, Partee et al. teach the concept of a sensor hub processing digital signals (col. 36, lines 39-49; etc.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to similarly process the sensor signals of Kwon et al. .121 for the purpose of providing the proper digital format for communication with other components along the bus.
In addition, Kwon et al. ‘121 do not explicitly wherein said sensor hub has at least one digital input for receiving digital signals. Partee et al. teach the sensor hub receiving digital input signals (col. 36, line 33 – note that it teaches analog and/or digital inputs, meaning that it can include a plurality of input signals that may be a combination of both analog and digital signals). .). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to similarly include digital signal inputs for the purpose of being able to accommodate measurements by digital sensors.
As per claim 17, Kwon et al. ‘121 wherein said sensor hub receiving measurements from a plurality of sensors (para .0079; etc., although do not teach whether the sensor inputs receive digital signals. Again, Partee et al. teach the concept of receiving a plurality of digital inputs (see col. 36, lines 33-49; also see claim 16 above re. Partee et al. anticipating a plurality of analog and/or digital input signals) has at least one first digital input for receiving digital signals and a second input, separate from said at least one first digital input, for receiving digital signals. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to provide a first and second digital input for the purpose of accommodating a plurality of digitally detected input measurements.
As per claim 18, Kwon et al. .121 further disclose the digital connection between sensor hub 230 and bus 250 functioning as both an input and an output (see Fig. 4 showing signal transmission traveling in both directions.
As per claim 22, Kwon et al. ‘121 disclose bus system 250, although does not explicitly teach the bus system extending within the sensor/communication module. It is considered a simple mechanical expedient that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to extend the bus system of Kwon et al. into the sensor module for the purpose of connecting with specific sensor outputs within the module as desired.
As per claim 25,again Kwon et al. ‘121 disclose processing digital signals and for generating a signal for a communication bus (see Fig. 4 re. sensor module 230 configured to both send and receive digital signals with communication bus 250). Kwon et al. ‘121 do not explicitly teach the sensor hub processing digital signals. However, Partee et al. teach the concept of a sensor hub processing digital signals (col. 36, lines 39-49; etc.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to similarly process the sensor signals of Kwon et al. for the purpose of providing the proper digital format for communication with other components along the bus.
As per claim 26, Kwon et al. disclose wherein the communication/sensor module has at least two internal sensors, including a first sensor for detecting a first environmental parameter of the communication module and a second sensor for detecting a second environmental parameter of the communication module which is different from the first environmental parameter (para. 0079).
As per claim 27, Kwon et al. disclose wherein at least one of said sensors is a sensor selected from the group consisting of a brightness sensor, a moisture sensor, and a temperature sensor (para. 0079).
As per claim 29, Kwon et al. disclose a household appliance 200, comprising at least one communication module (sensor module 230), the communication module being configured as a sensor hub that is configured for processing digital signals and for generating a signal for a communication bus. (see Fig. 4 re. sensor module 230 configured to both send and receive digital signals with communication bus 250).
Kwon et al. ‘121 disclose a communication module for a household appliance 200, the communication module being configured as a sensor hub (sensor module 230) that is configured for processing digital signals and for generating a signal for a communication bus (see Fig. 4 re. sensor module 230 configured to both send and receive digital signals with communication bus 250). Kwon does not explicitly teach the sensor hub processing digital signals. However, Partee et al. teach the concept of a sensor hub processing digital signals (col. 36, lines 39-49; etc.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to similarly process the sensor signals of Kwon et al. .121 for the purpose of providing the proper digital format for communication with other components along the bus.
As per claim 30, the household appliance being a household refrigeration appliance (para. 0059; etc.).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon et al ‘121) in view of Partee et al., and further in view of Li (US 2024/0370224 A1).
As per claim 20, Kwon et al. ‘121 do not teach wherein said bus interface is a D-bus interface. Li et al. teach a sensor module being connected via a D-bus (data bus) interface (para. 0062; Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to similarly connect the sensor module of Kwon et al. via a D-bus interface as simply a known arrangement for connecting devices to a signal transmission line/bus.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon et al ‘121) in view of Partee et al., and further in view of Kwon et al. (US 2022/0003494 A1 – hereinafter Kwon et al. ‘494).
As per claim 21, Kwon et al. ‘121 do not teach that the module comprises a single printed circuit board on which components of the communication module are arranged. Kwon et al. ‘494 teaches a refrigerator sensor module comprising both a sensor and a printed circuit board (claim 4, 18, 20; etc.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to similarly provide a printed circuit within the sensor module of Kwon et al. ‘121 for the purpose of providing operational control signals in conjunction with the sensors.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon et al ‘121) in view of Partee et al., and further in view of Priyantha et al. (US 2012/0100895 A1).
As per claim 23, Kwon et al. ‘121 do not teach wherein said internal bus system is an I2C bus. Priyantha et al. teach the use of connecting a digital sensor module to a processor via an I2C bus (para. 0057). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to similarly use an I2C bus as the bus of Kwon et al. as simply a generally known bus type for transmitting digital signals.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon et al ‘121) in view of Partee et al., and further in view of Ben-Tzur et al. (US 2011/0029413 A1).
As per claim 24, Kwon et al. ‘121 does not teach wherein the communication module is configured for communication with external digital sensors. Ben-Tzur et al. teach the concept pf a sensor module 100 being connected to a plurality of external sensors (para. 0185; etc.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to similarly connect the sensor module of Kwon et al. ‘121 to external sensors for the same basic purpose of being able to sense parameters at locations other than directly located at the module itself.
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon et al ‘121) in view of Partee et al., and further in view of Stuermann et al. (US 2009/0255344 A1).
As per claim 28, Kwon et al. ‘121 do not teach the sensor module comprising at least one computing unit. Stuermann et al. teach a sensor module comprising a computing unit (microprocessor 3) (see paras. 0003, 0009, 0019; etc.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to similarly provide a computing unit within the sensor module of Kwon et al. ‘121 for the purpose of providing operational control signals in conjunction with the sensors.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Kwon fails to teach the communication module being configured as a sensor hub and generating a signal for a communication bus outside said communication module (page 7 of Applicant’s Response). As shown in Fig. 4, Kwon clearly shows sensor module 230 communicating with bus 250, which is outside of the sensor module itself. Applicant further cites language from Kwon that “The processor 210 as a kind of processing unit may include the driving device 220, the sensor module 230, and the communication module 240.” First, note that the sentence uses the verb “may,” indicating that this is simply a possible embodiment. Second, note that Fig. 4 clearly shows all of these as distinct components. Finally, note that in the rejection the sensor module 230 of Kwon is itself considered a “communication module” in that it is a “module” that “communicates” with the bus 250 (as clearly shown in Fig. 4), which is clearly outside of the sensor module 230. Further, module 240 was never applied as part of the rejection, and the rejection was in no way trying to combine modules 230 and 240 as seemingly argued by Applicant.
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 MARC E NORMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4812. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30 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, Frantz Jules can be reached at 571-272-6681. 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.
/MARC E NORMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights