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 .
Contingent Limitations
Section 2111.04(II) of the MPEP states:
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. If the claimed invention requires the first condition to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires step A. If the claimed invention requires both the first and second conditions to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires both steps A and B.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur. The system claim interpretation differs from a method claim interpretation because the claimed structure must be present in the system regardless of whether the condition is met and the function is actually performed.
See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) (precedential) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of both method claims and system claims. In Schulhauser, both method claims and system claims recited the same contingent step. When analyzing the claimed method as a whole, the PTAB determined that giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation, "[i]f the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed" (quotation omitted). Schulhauser at 10. When analyzing the claimed system as a whole, the PTAB determined that "[t]he broadest reasonable interpretation of a system claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, still requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur." Schulhauser at 14. Therefore "[t]he Examiner did not need to present evidence of the obviousness of the [ ] method steps of claim 1 that are not required to be performed under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim (e.g., instances in which the electrocardiac signal data is not within the threshold electrocardiac criteria such that the condition precedent for the determining step and the remaining steps of claim 1 has not been met);" however to render the claimed system obvious, the prior art must teach the structure that performs the function of the contingent step along with the other recited claim limitations. Schulhauser at 9, 14.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Note that claim 25 is a method claim comprising contingent “if” limitations within each of the paragraphs of the body of the claim. Based on the above guidance, these limitations have not been accorded patentable weight under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.
Note further that while claims 13, 14, and 22 also recite contingent “if” limitations, these limitations have been accorded full patentable weight under a broadest reasonable interpretation according to the guidance above, since these claims are apparatus claims.
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 13-25 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.
Claim 13 recites “a door” at line 6 of the claim. However, the previously recites “a first door and a second door.” As written it is unclear how the “a door” relates to the first and second door. The Examiner recommends amending the claim to change “a door of said double-door configuration” to “one of said first and second doors”.
Similarly, claim 13 also recites “an other door” in the last line of the claim. Again, as written it is unclear how the “an other door” relates to the first and second door. The Examiner recommends amending the claim to change “an other door” to “the other of said first and second doors”.
The recitations of “the other door” in claim 14 and “said one door” in claim 22 should also be similarly amended accordingly.
Claims 14-22 are further rejected since they depend from claim 13.
In claim 25, the claim similarly recites “a door of the double-door arrangement”. First, there is a lack of antecedent basis for the limitation “double-door arrangement” since the previous recitation in the claim is directed to a “double-door configuration”. For consistency, “arrangement” should be amended to “configuration”. Similarly, the claim later recites “an other door of the double-door arrangement”. Again, for consistency, “arrangement” should be amended to “configuration”. Finally, for clarity, the Examiner recommends amending the recitation of “a door” in this limitation to “a first door” and “an other door” to “a second door”. Thus, these two limitations should fully read “a first door of the double-door configuration” and “a second door of the double-door configuration”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 25 is is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Izawa et a. (US 2016/0182868 A1).
As per claim 25, Izawa et al. disclose a household appliance 1 comprising double doors (Fig. 11) and storage space captured by a camera 2 (paras. 0041-0058; etc.). While Izawa et al. do not teach the specific method steps recited, as noted above these limitations have not been accorded patentable weight under broadest reasonable interpretation as being directed to contingent limitations within a method claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-24 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As per independent claim 13, Izawa et al. represents the state of the art regarding a refrigerator appliance comprising double doors and a camera arranged to capture images inside the storage space. However the prior art fails to teach or suggest the controls wherein after receipt of the respective trigger signal, said camera has a dead time within which said camera cannot capture a further image upon receipt of at least one further trigger signal; said data processor is configured so as upon receipt of the respective trigger signal and the image generated in response to a triggering of the respective trigger signal: to generate an image section from the image captured if the at least one further trigger signal is not received within the dead time, said image section showing only that region of the loading opening which is covered by the door which is triggering the respective trigger signal; and to generate in addition a further image section from the image captured if the at least one further trigger signal is received within the dead time, the further image section showing only that region of the loading opening which is covered by an other door.
Conclusion
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