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 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.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A-Prong 1
The claims recite:
an identifier that presents identification information uniquely identifiable by appearance.
an identifier that presents identification information uniquely identifiable by appearance.
capturing, an image of a first food item that is a food item to be stored, or a food item stored, in an interior of a refrigerator to generate the image showing the tag according to claim 1, the tag being attached to the first food item;
obtaining a temperature of the first food item by analyzing a color of the temperature indicating material included in the tag shown in the image generated; and
generating control information to control cooling of the interior of the refrigerator by comparing the temperature obtained with an appropriate temperature range for the interior of the refrigerator, and
transmitting the control information generated to the refrigerator.
The claims falls into the abstract idea groupings of (b) Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity ** fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk) commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)**
The limitations under their broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of certain methods of organizing human activity, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than recited, “a temperature indicating material and camera”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being business relations. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A-Prong 2
The recited limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite the following additional elements, a temperature indicating material and camera. These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that in conjunction with the abstract limitations, they amount to no more than:
iv. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, -(a temperature indicating material and camera)
The claims do not include additional elements individually or in an ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Integration into a practical application requires the additional element(s) to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. This is not the case in the instant application. Further, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than: generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
MPEP 2106 Step 2B
Eligibility requires that the claim recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception. As discussed above, this is where the instant application falls short. The claims do not include additional elements individually or in an ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception
Dependent Claims Step 2A:
The limitations of the dependent claims but for those addressed below merely set forth further refinements of the abstract idea without changing the analysis already
presented (that is, they further limit the organizing of human activities at step 2A —
Prong One without adding any new additional elements other than those already
analyzed above with respect to the independent claims at 2A — Prong Two.
Dependent Claims Step 2B:
The dependent claims merely use the same general technological environment
and instructions to implement the abstract idea as the independent claims without
adding any new additional elements. Accordingly, they are not directed to significantly
more than the exception itself, and are not eligible subject matter under § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Davidson et al. 2016/0194132 A1
As per Claim 1, Davidson teaches: a temperature indicating material (see para. 9);
an identifier that presents identification information uniquely identifiable by appearance (see fig. 2).
As per Claim 2, Davidson teaches the tag of claim 1 as described above. Davidson further teaches wherein the temperature indicating material includes a thermochromic ink (see para. 14).
As per Claim 3, Davidson teaches the tag of claim 1 as described above. Davidson further teaches wherein the tag contains no metal (see para. 9).
As per Claim 4, Davidson teaches the tag of claim 1 as described above. Davidson further teaches wherein the tag includes an attachment part to be attached to a food item, or a container or packaging for the food item, or the tag is part of a container or packaging for a food item (see para. 9).
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davidson et al. 2016/0194132 A1 in view Redderson U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2010/0269454
As per Claim 5, Davidson teaches the tag of claim 1 as described above. Davidson does not explicitly teach the limitation taught by Redderson wherein the tag further includes an indicator that indicates a temperature predetermined as an upper limit temperature of a food item to be stored in an interior of a refrigerator (see para. 28). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the tag of Davidson to include the teachings of Redderson to determine the exact temperature that a perishable is deemed no longer consumable as suggested by the cited portion of Redderson.
Claims 6-8 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davidson et al. 2016/0194132 A1 in view Kim U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20120181911 A1
As per Claims 6 and 12, Davidson teaches capturing, with a camera, an image of a first food item that is a food item to be stored, or a food item stored to generate the image showing the tag according to claim 1, the tag being attached to the first food item (see para. 25-26);
obtaining a temperature of the first food item by analyzing a color of the temperature indicating material included in the tag shown in the image generated (see para. 25-26); and
Davidson does not explicitly teach the limitation taught by Kim an item to be stored in a refrigerator generating control information to control cooling of the interior of the refrigerator by comparing the temperature obtained with an appropriate temperature range for the interior of the refrigerator (see para. 99-101),
and transmitting the control information generated to the refrigerator (see para. 99-101). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the tag of Davidson to include the teachings of Kim to determine that a refrigerator is operating sub-optimally, as suggested by the cited portion of Kim.
As per Claim 7, Davidson in view of Kim teach the method of claim 6 as described above. Davidson does not explicitly teach the limitation taught by Kim wherein in the generating of the control information, when the temperature obtained is determined to be higher than the appropriate temperature range, control information to intensify cooling of the refrigerator is generated (see para. 99-101). The motivation is the same as opined above.
As per Claim 8, Davidson in view of Kim teach the method of claim 6 as described above. While Kim describes repeatedly performing the generating of the control information based a comparison of the first food item stored in the interior of the refrigerator, and the transmitting of the control information wherein the cooling of the interior of the refrigerator is continuously controlled (see para. 113-116), Kim does not explicitly teach it being based on capturing an image, however, the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.) see In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
As per Claim 13, Davidson in view of Kim teach the method of claim 6 as described above. Davidson further teaches wherein the tag includes an attachment part to be attached to a food item, or a container or packaging for the food item, or the tag is part of a container or packaging for a food item, and the temperature indicating material is used to analyze a temperature of the food item, or the container or the packaging for the food item (see para. 9 and 14).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davidson et al. 2016/0194132 A1 in view Kim U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20120181911 A1 in further view of Lagares-Greenblatt U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2018/0196403 A1
As per Claim 10, Davidson in view of Kim teach the method of claim 6 as described above. Davidson does not explicitly teach the limitation taught by Lagares-Greenblatt obtaining the identification information presented by the identifier included in the tag shown in the image (see para. 49 and 51);
generating, corresponding to the identification information, food information indicating a use-by date or a best-before date of the first food item to which the tag is attached; and performing presentation control to present the food information (see para. 49 and 51). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the tag of Davidson and Kim to include the teachings of Lagares-Greenblatt to determine the freshness of a perishable item, as suggested by the cited portion of Lagares-Greenblatt.
Claims 9 and 11 are not rejected by the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TONYA S JOSEPH whose telephone number is (571)270-1361. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-2:30, First Fridays Off.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at (571) 272-5587. 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.
/TONYA JOSEPH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights