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 § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3, 15, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang (US 2016/0223250) in view of Kim (KR 2018-0124193, see attached English translation).
As to claim 1, Kang discloses an AI refrigerator comprising:
a door having a transparent display 14;
a camera 70 provided at a top of a cabinet and configured to capture an image of one or more food objects stored in a first region in which a first storage room is opened (Figs. 2 and 5); and
a processor 100 configured to:
display food management information (Figs. 12-13); and
provide recipe information related to the one or more food objects in the first storage room (paragraphs 641-642).
Kang does not explicitly teach a notification indicating removal of a food object and an add button for adding the food to a shopping list as claimed. However, Kim teaches a refrigerator with a camera that detects when a food item is removed and provides a notification of such with an option to add the food to a shopping list (page 5, paragraphs 10-13; page 6, paragraphs 10-11). Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Kang such that the processor is configured to operate in the manner as claimed and taught by Kim because it would help ensure that a user is able to procure desired food items.
As to claim 2, Kang discloses detecting that the first storage room is opened and acquiring a closing time point of the first storage room according to switching in moving direction (Fig. 29, step S19; paragraph 347).
As to claim 3, Kang discloses transmitting a capture comm and to the camera 70 at the acquired time point as claimed (Fig. 29, step S92).
As to claim 15, Kim teaches displaying a shopping list based on an input for selecting the add button being received (page 5, paragraphs 10-13; page 6, paragraphs 10-11).
As to claim 17, Kang discloses displaying the food information after an outer door is closed (Fig. 3).
As to claim 18, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would nec-essarily perform the method claimed then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. Thus the method as claimed would necessarily result from the normal operation of the modified apparatus of Kang.
Claims 4-6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang and Kim as applied above, and further in view of Vaananen (US 9,965,798).
As to claim 4, Kang does not explicitly teach displaying information based on a food storage state as claimed. However, Vaananen teaches that it is known to display a food storage state such as an expiration date (col. 14, lines 20-40). Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Kang to display information in the manner as claimed and taught by Vaananen in order to enable the user to properly manage storage of the stored goods.
As to claim 5, Kang does not explicitly teach performing image recognition as claimed. However, Vaananen teaches acquiring a boundary box containing a food object and identifying the food object using detection and identification models learned through machine learning (col. 11, lines 10-25). In light of this teaching it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Kang to perform food object identification in the manner as claimed in order to effectively and accurately provide food management information for the user.
As to claim 6, the modified apparatus includes acquiring the storage state of the identified food object and controlling the display to display an alarm that notifies the storage state (Vaananen, col. 14, lines 15-40; col. 23, lines 1-7).
As to claim 16, Vaananen teaches completing the order (col. 29, lines 10-20) but is silent regarding an order completion pop-up window. However, Official Notice is taken that such a pop-up window is a common and typical feature that would have been obvious to use in conjunction with the display of Kang for the purpose of notifying the user that the order has been completed.
Claims 7-12 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang, Kim, and Vaananen as applied above, and further in view of Klingshirn (US 2016/0138857).
As to claim 7, Kang does not explicitly teach displaying a panoramic view screen when an input for selecting a notification message is received. However, Klingshirn teaches that it is known to provide a panoramic image of photographed contents of a refrigerator (paragraph 121). Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to provide a panoramic image in response to a user selection as claimed in order to provide the user with a comprehensive view of the stored goods in the refrigerator.
As to claim 8, the modified apparatus includes a panoramic view including images acquired by photographing a storage state of a plurality of storage rooms (Kang, Figs. 12, 18, and 32; Klingshirn, paragraph 121).
As to claim 9, the modified apparatus includes a panoramic area 147 and image display area 153 (Klingshirn, Fig. 13).
As to claim 10, Vaananen displaying a plurality of recipes capable of being cooked using food selected by a user (col. 21, line 53 – col. 22, line 20; col. 23, lines 45-65).
As to claims 11-12, Vaananen teaches displaying detailed recipe information (Fig. 2B) including ingredients and information on a cooking order (Figs. 2-3 and 7).
As to claims 19-20, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would nec-essarily perform the method claimed then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. Thus the method as claimed would necessarily result from the normal operation of the modified apparatus of Kang.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang, Kim, and Vaananen as applied above, and further in view of Woo (US 2018/0187943).
As to claim 13, the modified apparatus does not include outputting recipe information using an audio output. However, Woo teaches an audio output for a displayed recipe (paragraph 122). Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Kang to use recipe audio output as claimed and taught by Woo in order to further provide the user with necessary information for cooking.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page response filed 8/12/2026, with respect to the claim objection and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Said objection and rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kim (KR 2018-0124193, see attached English translation) as discussed above.
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 JONATHAN BRADFORD whose telephone number is (571)270-5199. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 - 4:00 ET.
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, Jerry-Daryl Fletcher can be reached at (571)270-5054. 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.
/JONATHAN BRADFORD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights