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 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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 9, 11-14, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KENTNER et al. (CN109323529A) in view of TAKAHARA (WO 2014073427 A1, attached as PDF).
Regarding independent claim 1, Kentner teaches:
A refrigerator, comprising: memory storing a preset frequency of the refrigerator and one or more computer programs; a communication interface communicating with a terminal device; a driving unit; one or more processors communicatively coupled to the memory, wherein the one or more computer programs include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the refrigerator to: receive audio information sensed by the terminal device from the terminal device through the communication interface while the refrigerator operates in a first mode, acquire location information of the terminal device, and control the driving unit to operate in a second mode different from the first mode when the terminal device is identified as being within a critical distance from the refrigerator based on the location information. (Kentner: ¶[0011], [0014], [0038]-[0048], [0053], claims 11-13; Kentner teaches a refrigeration device, a communication interface, and operating mode that is able to switch between a normal mode and a low noise mode. Kentner further teaches a range hood, sensor, or IoT device (terminal device) where the refrigerator is able to determine its distance from and if it is within a preset value (critical distance) will connect to and use audio information to adjust cooling modes. Kentner further teaches using sensors to obtain noise levels in the environment around the refrigerator.)
Kentner does not explicitly teach extracting refrigerator noise from the audio information based on the preset frequency.
Takahara, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches a terminal device (Takahara: ¶[0019]; a sound collection device), a communication interface (Takahara: ¶[0056]; communication control unit), extract refrigerator noise from the audio information (Takahara: ¶[0058]-[0059]), and comparing the refrigerator noise against a threshold. (Takahara: ¶[0011])
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the noise monitoring of the multi-modal refrigerator to extract the refrigerator noise from the audio information based on a preset frequency. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to isolate audio information on the refrigerator’s operation and adjust for the user’s sensitivity to noise (Kentner: ¶[0040]) as well as determine a condition of the refrigerator with higher accuracy based on the operation sound of the refrigerator (Takahara ¶[0006]).
Regarding claim 2, Kentner and Takahara teaches the refrigerator of claim 1, wherein the second mode is a low-noise mode that generates less noise than the noise generated in the first mode. (Kentner: ¶[0037]; Kentner teaches a low-noise operation mode and a normal operation mode.)
Regarding claim 3, Kentner and Takahara teaches the refrigerator of claim 1, wherein the memory stores a reference noise corresponding to the preset frequency and an error range corresponding to the preset frequency, and wherein the one or more computer programs further include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the refrigerator to: extract an audio signal corresponding to the preset frequency from among a plurality of noises included in the audio information, and determine the extracted audio signal as the refrigerator noise when a size of the extracted audio signal is within the error range of the reference noise. (Takahara: ¶[0007]-[0010], ¶[0064], ¶[0070]-[0074], Fig. 10, 11, 13; Takahara teaches a chiller’s operating sound signal (reference noise), an acoustic feature data of signal intensity for specific frequency components, and a state determination unit that may distinguish the state of the refrigerator.)
Regarding claim 4, Kentner and Takahara teaches the refrigerator of claim 1, wherein the one or more computer programs further include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the refrigerator to extract the refrigerator noise from the audio information based on the preset frequency and a preset signal waveform. (Takahara: ¶[0007]-[0010], ¶[0064], ¶[0070]-[0074], Fig. 10, 11, 13; Takahara teaches a preset frequency and signal waveform.)
Regarding claim 9, Kentner and Takahara teaches wherein the one or more computer programs further include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the refrigerator to: control the driving unit to operate the refrigerator in the second mode and then acquire a current temperature; and operate the refrigerator by changing the second mode to the first mode when the current temperature is lower than or equal to a critical temperature. (Kentner: ¶[0067]-[0070]; Kentner teaches a cooling mode that may be based on the compartment’s temperature exceeding the highest threshold and an intelligent adjustment mode.)
Independent claim 11 recites a method for using the device of claim 1; therefore the same rationale for rejection applies.
Claim 12 recites a method for using the device of claim 2; therefore the same rationale for rejection applies.
Claim 13 recites a method for using the device of claim 3; therefore the same rationale for rejection applies.
Claim 14 recites a method for using the device of claim 4; therefore the same rationale for rejection applies.
Independent claim 19 recites a system for performing the function of the device in claim 1; therefore the same rationale for rejection applies.
Claim 20 recites a system for performing the function of the device in claim 1; therefore the same rationale for rejection applies.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8, 10, 15-18 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 5:
The prior art of record, alone or in combination, does not appear to explicitly teach a device, specifically including:
“wherein the memory stores a distance estimation table indicating a distance corresponding to the refrigerator noise, and wherein the one or more computer programs further include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the refrigerator to: acquire the distance corresponding to the refrigerator noise as the location information of the terminal device based on the distance estimation table, and control the driving unit to operate in the second mode when the distance is identified as being within the critical distance.”
Claim 6:
The prior art of record, alone or in combination, does not appear to explicitly teach a device, specifically including:
“wherein the one or more computer programs further include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the refrigerator to transmit a control signal requesting the audio information to the terminal device through the communication interface when a preset event occurs, and wherein the preset event is an event identified as being connectable to the terminal device through the communication interface.”
Claim 7:
The prior art of record, alone or in combination, does not appear to explicitly teach a device, specifically including:
“wherein the one or more computer programs further include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the refrigerator to: identify whether the audio information includes a user conversation when the terminal device is within the critical distance from the refrigerator; and control the driving unit to operate the refrigerator in the second mode when the audio information includes the user conversation.”
Claim 8:
The prior art of record, alone or in combination, does not appear to explicitly teach a device, specifically including:
“wherein the one or more computer programs further include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the refrigerator to: transmit a control signal requesting voiceprint information stored in the terminal device to the terminal device through the communication interface when the terminal device is within the critical distance from the refrigerator through the communication interface; and identify whether the audio information includes the user conversation based on the voiceprint information when the voiceprint information is received from the terminal device through the communication interface.”
Claim 10:
The prior art of record, alone or in combination, does not appear to explicitly teach a device, specifically including:
“wherein the one or more computer programs further include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the refrigerator to: acquire environmental noise related to the terminal device based on the audio information; acquire a ratio occupied by the refrigerator noise in the environmental noise; and acquire the location information of the terminal device based on the refrigerator noise when the ratio is greater than or equal to a critical ratio.”
Claim 15:
The prior art of record, alone or in combination, does not appear to explicitly teach a device, specifically including:
“wherein the refrigerator stores a distance estimation table indicating a distance corresponding to the refrigerator noise, wherein, in the acquiring of the location information, the distance corresponding to the refrigerator noise is acquired as the location information of the terminal device based on the distance estimation table, and wherein, in the operating of the refrigerator in the second mode, the refrigerator operates in the second mode when the distance is identified as being within the critical distance.”
Claim 16:
The prior art of record, alone or in combination, does not appear to explicitly teach a device, specifically including:
“further comprising: transmitting a control signal requesting the audio information to the terminal device through a communication interface when a preset event occurs, wherein the preset event is an event identified as being connectable to the terminal device through the communication interface.”
Claim 17:
The prior art of record, alone or in combination, does not appear to explicitly teach a device, specifically including:
“further comprising: identifying whether the audio information includes a user conversation when the terminal device is within the critical distance from the refrigerator; and controlling a driving unit to operate the refrigerator in the second mode when the audio information includes the user conversation.”
Claim 18:
The prior art of record, alone or in combination, does not appear to explicitly teach a device, specifically including:
“further comprising: transmitting a control signal requesting voiceprint information stored in the terminal device to the terminal device through a communication interface when the terminal device is within the critical distance from the refrigerator through the communication interface; and identifying whether the audio information includes the user conversation based on the voiceprint information when the voiceprint information is received from the terminal device through the communication interface.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ramaiah (US 20220180890 A1) teaches a method for recording operation of equipment and extracting features from the audio file.
Fang et al. (CN 106885443 A) teaches a refrigerator that obtains the user state information of at least one user from a terminal device and adjusts operation of the refrigerator based upon the user’s information.
Happ et al. (DE 102012223237 A1) teaches using a terminal device to analyze audio information.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW M BARLOW whose telephone number is (571)270-5332. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (8:00 am - 4:00 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, Scott Baderman can be reached at (571) 272-3644. 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.
/ANDREW MACNAUGHTON BARLOW/Examiner, Art Unit 2118
/SCOTT T BADERMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2118
Prosecution Insights