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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-15) in the reply filed on 6/8/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a computing device” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
After reviewing the specification, the computing device appears to be drawn to a processor, memory, and communication interface, or known equivalents (per paragraph [0029]).
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.
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) 1-2, 4-5, 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Besore (US 2018/0106523 – provided by Applicant in the IDS) in view of Lee (US 2023/0298351 – provided by Applicant in the IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Besore teaches a refrigerator (see Title) comprising:
a main body defining a refrigerated enclosure (120, Fig. 2) and a main body opening leading to at least a portion of the refrigerated enclosure (126, Fig. 2, paragraph [0022]);
at least one storage compartment within the refrigerated enclosure defining a compartment volume able to be closed off from at least one other portion of the refrigerated enclosure (139, Fig. 2, paragraph [0023]) allowing a storage condition within the compartment volume to be controlled separately from the at least one other portion of the refrigerated enclosure (140, Fig. 2, paragraph [0023]);
at least one computing device (134, Fig. 1, paragraph [0045]), the at least one computing device configured to:
wherein the instructions provided to the at least one environmental control device control the at least one environmental control device to change the storage condition within the compartment volume based on the inventory in the compartment volume (see paragraph [0043], Fig. 5, paragraph [0038]) and provide instructions to at least one environmental control device in electrical communication with the at least one computing device (see paragraph [0038]).
Besore does not teach at least one camera mounted to the main body, the at least one camera positioned to have a field of view forward of the main body opening;
that the at least one computing device in operable connection with the at least one camera,
instruct the at least one camera to capture images of items being placed into or removed from the at least one storage compartment;
analyze the images captured by the at least one camera and determine whether the images contain an object of interest;
assign a direction of movement for the object of interest being at least one of into or out of the compartment volume;
update an inventory for the at least one storage compartment based on the object of interest and the direction of movement for the object of interest; and
Lee teaches an environmental storage structure with live inventory sensing (Lee, Title) which features at least one camera mounted to the main body (Lee, 62, Fig. 4A, paragraph [0052]), the at least one camera positioned to have a field of view forward of the main body opening (see Lee, Fig. 4A, paragraph [0054]); that the at least one computing device in operable connection with the at least one camera, instruct the at least one camera to capture images of items being placed into or removed from the at least one storage compartment (see Lee, paragraph [0054]); analyze the images captured by the at least one camera and determine whether the images contain an object of interest (Lee, 900, Fig. 7, paragraph [0099]); assign a direction of movement for the object of interest being at least one of into or out of the compartment volume (Lee, see at least paragraph [0025]); update an inventory for the at least one storage compartment based on the object of interest and the direction of movement for the object of interest (Lee, paragraph [0022]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide Besore with a camera which is coupled to a computing device to capture images to analyze, assign, and update inventory in the refrigerator, as taught by Lee, in order to provide users with consistent updates on the inventory of their items.
Regarding claim 2, Besore as modified teaches the refrigerator of claim 1, wherein the at least one storage compartment is a drawer (Besore, paragraph [0022]).
Regarding claim 4, Besore as modified teaches the refrigerator of claim 2, further comprising a door mounted to and movable with respect to the main body, wherein the door covers at least a portion of the drawer when the door is closed against the main body (Besore, 127, 126, Fig. 2, paragraph [0023]).
Regarding claim 5, Besore as modified teaches the refrigerator of claim 2, further comprising a door mounted to and movable with respect to the main body, wherein the drawer is accessible when the door is closed against the main body (Besore, 127, 126, Fig. 2, paragraph [0023]).
Regarding claim 8, Besore as modified teaches the refrigerator of claim 1, wherein the at least one environmental control device includes a damper control mechanism that controls a damper within an air duct leading to the compartment volume (Besore, paragraph [0023]).
Regarding claim 9, Besore as modified teaches the refrigerator of claim 1, wherein the at least one environmental control device includes a filtration system in fluid communication with the compartment volume (Besore, claim 20, paragraph [0030]).
Regarding claim 10, Besore as modified teaches the refrigerator of claim 1, wherein the at least one environmental control device includes a fan in fluid communication with the compartment volume (Besore, 172, 174, paragraphs [0028]-[0029]).
Regarding claim 11, Besore as modified teaches the refrigerator of claim 1, wherein the at least one environmental control device includes a light source positioned with respect to the compartment volume to direct light into the compartment volume (Besore, see paragraph [0036]).
Regarding claim 12, Besore as modified teaches the refrigerator of claim 1, wherein the at least one environmental control device includes a gas source controller in fluid communication with a gas source and the compartment volume (Besore, paragraph [0023]).
Regarding claim 13, Besore as modified teaches the refrigerator of claim 1, wherein the at least one environmental control device includes a humidity regulator in fluid communication with the compartment volume (Besore, 190, Fig. 4, paragraph [0030]).
Regarding claim 14, Besore as modified teaches the refrigerator of claim 1, wherein the at least one environmental control device includes a sensor (Besore, 152, paragraph [0031]).
Claim(s) 3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Besore in view of Lee, further in view of Ha (US 2023/0316695 – provided by Applicant in the IDS)
Regarding claim 3, Besore as modified teaches the refrigerator of claim 2, wherein the drawer is movable between a closed position and an open position when in the open position the drawer extends forwardly from main body opening (inherent to a drawer). Besore as modified does not teach the at least one camera being positioned to have the field of view to include a drawer opening leading to the drawer.
Ha teaches a refrigerator (Ha, Title) which features a camera that is installed in the cabinet and captures an image of the storage chamber, including a drawer during opening and closing of the drawer (Ha, Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide Besore as modified with the at least one camera being positioned to have the field of view to include a drawer opening leading to the drawer, as taught by Ha, in order to provide users with consistent updates on the inventory of their items.
Regarding claim 7, Besore as modified teaches the refrigerator of claim 1, but does not teach at least one other camera having another field of view forward of the main body opening configured to capture images of items being placed into or removed from the at least one other portion of the refrigerated enclosure.
Ha teaches a refrigerator (Ha, Title) which features a camera that is installed in the cabinet and captures an image of the storage chamber, including a drawer during opening and closing of the drawer (Ha, Abstract), and a field of view forward of the main body opening configured to capture images of items being placed into or removed from the at least one other portion of the refrigerated enclosure (Ha, 18, Fig. 1, paragraph [0071]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide Besore as modified with the at least one camera being positioned to have the field of view to include a drawer opening leading to the drawer, as taught by Ha, in order to provide users with consistent updates on the inventory of their items.
The Examiner notes that the combination teaches having multiple cameras, as Lee teaches a plurality of cameras and Ha teaches the position of the camera.
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Besore in view of Lee, further in view of Cizik (US 2018/0274841 – provided by Applicant in the IDS).
Regarding claim 6, Besore as modified teaches the refrigerator of claim 1, but does not teach that the at least one storage compartment is shelf that is selectively closed off from the at least one other portion of the refrigerated enclosure by a lid.
Cizik teaches a refrigerator (Cizik, Abstact) which features at least one storage compartment (Cizik, 56, Fig. 2, paragraph [0053]) is shelf that is selectively closed off from the at least one other portion of the refrigerated enclosure by a lid (Cizik, 12, Fig. 2, paragraph [0054]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide Besore as modified with the at least one storage compartment is shelf that is selectively closed off from the at least one other portion of the refrigerated enclosure by a lid, as taught by Cizik, in order to provide greater structural integrity to the storage compartment.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAEL N BABAA whose telephone number is (571)270-3272. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-5 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, 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.
/NAEL N BABAA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights