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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure (with emphasis by the examiner.)
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract does not identify what constitutes the invention, but only what features the invention may optionally include (line 1, counted within the abstract rather than with the page-by-page numbering of the application, “A refrigerator may include:”) without any definite statement of what required features constitute applicant’s invention. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 3 December 2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Particularly, the following documents have been identified by this information disclosure statement without statements of relevance, English-language abstracts, or translations, or identification of English-language equivalent documents:
Japanese Publication No. 2002-327978
Japanese Publication No. 2004-325039
Japanese Publication No. 2545668
Korean Publication No. 10-2008-0079801
Korean Publication No. 10-1771590
Korean Publication No. 10-2020-071364
Korean Publication No. 10-1929483
Korean Publication No. 10-2023-0044890
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 1-15 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.
In lines 12-13 of claim 1 (as counted within the claim rather than by the page-by-page numbering presented in the claims as filed), the claim recites “a controller including at least one processor, comprising processing circuitry, individually and/or collectively configured to:” perform various method steps. The phrase “individually and/or collectively configured to” does not clearly identify which of the preceding elements (the controller, the at least one processor, and the processing circuitry of the at least one processor) are configured in this way, including whether a processor and its own circuitry or a controller and the processor(s) contained therein would or would not be considered to be operating “collectively”. For this reason, the scope of claim 1 and the elements required to be “individually and/or collectively configured” cannot be positively ascertained and the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite.
Claim 11 teaches in lines 7-8 a step of “adjusting the input voltage… based on a first temperature of the sterilizing lamp or a second temperature of the storage compartment”. It is not clear whether the first and second temperatures recited in this passage are measured values (as “a contamination level” in line 2 of the claim is the only parameter taught to be sensed or detected) or may be predetermined or stored values (such as target or threshold temperature values) or may be calculated from the other parameters known or determined by the system (e.g. the sterilization intensity and voltage of the sterilizing lamp). Further, as the claim teaches only one or the other of the first and second temperatures to be used in the adjusting step, it is unclear whether both temperatures are required to be determined or known in the practice of the method or if the method could be practiced, for example, in controlling a refrigerator which includes a temperature sensor for the storage compartment (capable of determining the claimed second temperature) but not one for the sterilizing lamp (and thus which is not capable of determining the claimed first temperature). For this reason, the scope of claim 11 with regard to the first and second temperatures cannot be positively ascertained and the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-15 are each rejected as depending upon a base claim which has been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 11 recites a method for controlling a refrigerator, the method comprising steps of “detecting a contamination level in a storage compartment by a contamination sensor”, “determining a sterilization intensity based on the detected contamination level”, “determining a rotation speed of a fan… and an input voltage of a sterilizing lamp… based on the determined sterilization intensity”, and “adjusting the input voltage of the sterilizing lamp based on a first temperature of the sterilizing lamp or a second temperature of the storage compartment”. This method represents only a mental process and thus presents an abstract idea which is not eligible subject matter.
Although it has been found that the use of “a particular machine” in the application of a judicial exception may constitute an inventive concept which is eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101, MPEP 2106.05(b) §1 and Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716-17, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1755-56 (Fed. Cir. 2014) state that “It is important to note that a general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine.”
The claimed method requires as structure “a contamination sensor”, recited with a high degree of generality and without requiring specific structure for the sensor. Such a sensor is not found to be sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as it represents only a generic computer component which is conventionally known and operates in a conventional manner.
As evidence, US Patent No. 11,471,551 B1 to Leavitt et al. teaches in col. 7, lines 28-54 that:
Sensors that are well known and widely available are employed to sense real-time concentrations of both ozone and NOx may also be connected to a data logger for maintenance of historical information on apparatus operation.
Likewise, Korean Publication No. 10-2023-0010018 to Oh teaches in ¶ 64 that:
The contamination measuring unit is for measuring the concentration of toxic components contained in the gas to be treated, and since various well-known contamination measuring sensors may be used, a detailed description thereof will be omitted.
With ¶¶ 4-19 of Oh teaching this sensing of “toxic components contained in the gas to be treated” to pertain particularly to the detection of “pollutants” in a system for purifying air.
An English translation of Oh has been provided with this Office Action and citations to specific passages and paragraphs of this reference are directed to this translation rather than to the Korean-language original document.
As demonstrated by Leavitt and Oh, sensors for determining the concentration of a contaminant within a body or stream are well-known and conventional within the art and thus are not found to constitute a “particular machine” for the purpose of identifying an inventive concept within the claimed judicial exception.
The claim further recites structure including “a storage compartment”, “a fan”, and “a sterilizing lamp” but none of these elements is positively recited to be used or controlled within the claimed method. The storage compartment is recited only as the location of the contamination sensor, at which the contamination level is sensed and to which the fan provides air. The fan and the lamp are recited only as elements for which parameters are determined, calculating a sped for the fan and a voltage for the lamp. As such, none of these elements are required by the claimed method and also do not constitute a “particular machine”.
Further regarding the sensor, MPEP 2106.05(g) states that “As explained by the Supreme Court, the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ 193, 196 (1978).” and that any limitation which “amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting” constitutes such activity. In the instant claim, the conventional contamination sensor is taught only for the gathering of information used in steps of determining values and adjusting those determined values which do not provide any particular physical output or transformation.
Regarding the steps of “determining a sterilization intensity”, “determining a rotation speed… and an input voltage”, and “adjusting the input voltage”, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) details that a mental process is one which “‘can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper’ [and states such a process] to be an abstract idea”. The claimed steps, beyond the insignificant data gathering of the “detecting step” constitute only determining values for variables from previously collected data and thus present only a mental process. Specifically regarding the “adjusting the input voltage step”, as the claim does not include any step of outputting power at the determined input voltage or similar, it appears that the voltage taught to be adjust is merely the determined value of a variable rather than the actual physical parameter of a voltage level provided to a physical lamp, and so this step also only represents a manipulation of data rather than a physical transformation.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims pertain only to the application of well-known and conventional apparatus, used only to perform conventional functions (the gathering of data by sensors) and mental processes (the determination and adjustment of a result values from collected data)
The apparatus does not amount to a “particular machine” as it is conventional structure (per the evidence of Leavitt and Oh) claimed with a high degree of generality and the claimed method does not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing as it merely recites only the gathering and processing of data presented with a high degree of generality.
For these reasons, claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to patent ineligible subject matter.
Dependent claims 12-15 depend upon claim 11 but do not add particular structure of transformations brought about by the claimed method, limiting the parent claim only by reciting particular adjustments to the determined input voltage and circumstances under which they are applied. For this reason, the dependent claims are also found to pertain only to a mental process and are rejected as being directed to ineligible subject matter for the same reasons set forth with regard to independent claim 11.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-15 are considered to read over the prior art of record because the prior art of record does not teach or suggest the claimed combination of features including a system and method for controlling a sterilizing lamp in a refrigerator including the determination of an input voltage for the sterilizing lamp and the adjustment of this determined input voltage based on a temperature of the sterilizing lamp or of a storage compartment of the refrigerator . However, this claim cannot be considered "allowable" at this time due to the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office Action. Specifically, independent claim 1 is rejected based on the indefinite recitation of the controller and components thereof being “individually and/or collectively configured” to perform the method and independent claim 11 is rejected based on the indefinite recitation of “a first temperature” and “a second temperature” not otherwise defined or identified within the claim. Further, claim 11 is rejected as being directed to subject matter which is not eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. Therefore upon the claims being rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 112 set forth in this Office Action, further consideration of this claim with respect to the prior art will be necessary.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
PNG
media_image1.png
540
394
media_image1.png
Greyscale
US Publication No. 2022/0030919 A1 to Bofill teaches in fig. 2, shown above, a refrigerator (10) having formed therein a light assembly (21) for emitting “sterilizing wavelengths of light, such as ultraviolet light” (¶ 28) but does not teach control of the lighting assembly (21) based on any input other than a door opening switch (22) detecting when the door (14) of the refrigerator (10) is open and deactivating the lighting assembly (21) while the door (14) is open (as taught in ¶ 31) or from a timer (23) to break the circuit and deactivate the light assembly (21) after it has operated for a preset time (as taught in ¶ 33). Bofill particularly does not teach a sensor for detecting a concentration level of a contaminant for determining an intensity of voltage with which the lighting assembly is to be activated or the temperature of the storage compartment or of the lighting assembly itself to be used in adjusting such a voltage as taught in the instant independent claims.
PNG
media_image2.png
594
446
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Similarly, US Publication No. 2003/0019222 A1 to Takahashi et al. teaches in fig. 2, shown above, a refrigerator (10) having an air duct (23) formed in a back surface thereof and provided with an ultraviolet discharging lamp (24) for irradiating ultraviolet rays in the air duct and further having a control device (27) for controlling a fan (18) that blows air through the duct (23) and the lamp (24) (as taught in ¶¶ 28 and 39). As with Bofill, Takahashi does not teach the system including a contamination sensor or adjusting the operation of the lamp on the basis of a sensed temperature but teaches that the control device (27) may control the fan (18) and lamp (24) on the basis of the open/closed status of a door (15) of the refrigerator and on a timer (e.g. operating both continuously for 5 minutes after the door 15 is detected to be closed as taught in ¶ 41).
PNG
media_image3.png
354
442
media_image3.png
Greyscale
US Publication No. 2018/0274839 A1 to Kim et al. teaches in figs. 2 and 3, shown above and below, respectively, a refrigerator having installed in a storage chamber (12) thereof a deodorizer (16) which comprises a deodorizing fan (131) and sterilizing lamp (133) in communication with a controller (110) receiving input from a smell sensor (122) which is “a gas sensor that detects smell generated from foodstuffs in the refrigerating chamber” (¶ 53) and which operates the fan (131) when the detected intensity of smell is a predetermined value or greater, driving air through the deodorizer and specifically past the sterilizing lamp (133) (¶¶ 71-73). Kim does not teach the control of the intensity of the lamp or the voltage thereto to be performed on the basis of the sensed smell intensity and teaches only that a deodorizing mode is set or not set based on the intensity in comparison to a threshold.
PNG
media_image4.png
342
454
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
686
388
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
388
642
media_image6.png
Greyscale
US Patent No. 5,230,220 to Kang et al. teaches in figs. 3 and 6, shown above, a sterilizing/deodorizing apparatus for use in a refrigerator, the apparatus having a fan (41) and a sterilizing section (20) which includes a discharge lamp (21) for emitting ultraviolet rays. Kang teaches in their abstract that the apparatus may be operated automatically by a temperature senor or by an odor detector but does not teach the specific operation, including the establishment and adjustment of an operating voltage for the lamp taught in the instant claims. Specifically, Kang teaches in col. 3, lines 60-66 that a predetermined voltage is applied to the discharge lamp (21) rather than teaching the voltage being determined based on the input of an odor or contamination sensor or the voltage being adjusted based on a sensed temperature.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL C COMINGS whose telephone number is (571)270-7385. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 AM to 5 PM.
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.
/DANIEL C COMINGS/ Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights