Remarks
DETAILED ACTION
This non-final office action is in response to the application filled on 01/16/2025. Claims 1-10 are pending and examined below.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a) ‐ (d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP 2023/11826933.1, filed on 12/28/2023.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 9 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9, line 7, “threshold (K2).” should be “threshold (K2);”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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:
“device”, “first acquisition module”, “first comparison analysis module” and “alarm module” in claim 8
“First setting module”, “second setting module” and “big data analysis module” in claim 9
“Sending module” and “receiving module” in claim 10
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.
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.
Claim(s) 3 and 8-10 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 3, which recites “activating an alarm” line 8 is not clear since claim 1 also recites an alarm. It is not clear both alarms are same or different.
Regarding claim 8, which recites a device for applying the method of claim 1. Then on line 2 recites “a refrigerator drawer”, line 3 “a preset comparison factor” and line 3 “an alarm” which is unclear since claim 1 also recites “a refrigerator drawer”, “a preset comparison factor” and “an alarm”. It is not clear whether both “a refrigerator drawer”, “a preset comparison factor” and “an alarm” are same or different. Examiner suggests that Applicant make Claim 8 separate and incorporate the text of Claim 1 into it instead of referring to Claim 1 in order to avoid antecedent issues.
Dependent claim(s) 9 and 10 is/are also rejected because they do not resolve their parent (claim 8’s) deficiencies.
Claims 8-10 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 limitation “device” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Fig 6 shows block diagram of a device of the present invention. However, submitted specification does not describe the structure of the device. From the submitted specification it is not clear what type of device is this. It is not clear a processor is acting as device or not. Similar analysis applies to other 112f invokes claim limitation mentioned above.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As described above, the specification lacks structure that is clearly linked to the limitations interpreted under 112(f) of claim limitation “device” of claim 8. Fig 6 shows block diagram of a device of the present invention. However, submitted specification does not describe the structure of the device. From the submitted specification it is not clear what type of device is this.
Because there is no disclosure of adequate structure to perform the claimed function, the specification does not convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that the applicant had possession of the claimed invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6-8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0301923 (“Barreto”), and further in view of US 2023/0294484 (“Han”).
Regarding claim 1, Barreto discloses an item detection method applied to a (see at least [0005], where “receive a detection of an inventory change inside of the refrigerator”), wherein the item detection method comprises:
acquiring item weight data (KO) in a refrigerator drawer (see at least [0006], where “receiving a signal corresponding with a gross weight of a cabinet”; cabinet is interpreted as refrigerator drawer);
performing comparison analysis with a preset comparison factor according to the acquired item weight data (KO) (see at least [0006], where “determining a change in the weight of the cabinet, interpreting the change in the weight of the cabinet as a change in a weight of contents within the cabinet, increasing the quantity of articles when the change in the weight of the contents increases by a predetermined amount, and decreasing the quantity of articles when the change in the weight of the contents decreases by a predetermined amount, and communicating a current value of the quantity of articles via an interface operably associated with the refrigerator”; predetermined amount is determined based on comparison and weight. see also [0093]);
determining whether to activate an alarm or remind a user according to a result of the comparison analysis (see at least [0080], where “a warning can be given on HMI 24 visibly and/or audibly (such as by a speaker associated with HMI 24), if the total weight over a predetermined maximum is detected.”).
Barreto does not disclose the following limitation:
an item detection method applied to a car refrigerator.
However, Han discloses a method wherein an item detection method applied to a car refrigerator (see at least [0071], where “obtaining historical item information of the vehicle refrigerator”; see also [0072]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Barreto to incorporate the teachings of Han by including the above feature for improving item detection in a car refrigerator.
Regarding claim 6, Barreto further discloses a method applied to a
arranging four half-bridge resistive sensors at four corners of a bottom part of the refrigerator drawer, forming a full-bridge circuit through parallel connection, installing a support plate on the four sensors, and placing an item on the support plate (see at least [0047], where “Turning to FIGS. 1-5 a plurality of weight sensing assemblies 18 are assembled with cabinet 12 and include a plurality of feet 32 coupled with the cabinet 12 along the lower surface 28 of the exterior wrapper 30. As depicted, a plurality of sensors 26 in the form of load transducers disposed between and in opposing contact with the cabinet 12 and respective ones of the feet 32.”; see also [0055]);
a gravity of the item acting on the support plate, and the support plate transferring the gravity to deformation parts of the sensors, causing a change in a resistance value (see at least [0081]);
through an AD circuit, converting the resistance value into a gravity value to acquire the item weight data (KO) (see at least [0055]). Rejection relied on Han for car refrigerator.
Regarding claim 7, Barreto further discloses a method wherein weight data of the refrigerator is acquired, see citation above on claim 1. Han further discloses an item detection method applied to a car refrigerator, wherein the item detection method comprises:
wirelessly connecting the car refrigerator to an external mobile terminal (see at least [0067] and fig 2);
acquiring, by the external mobile terminal, the item (see at least [0107]);
reminding the user whether it is needed to add the item or sending an instruction to the car refrigerator by the external mobile terminal according to the item (see at least 2 and [0105]).
Regarding claim 8, as best understood in view of indefiniteness rejection explained above, Barreto further discloses a device for applying the method of Claim 1, wherein the device comprises:
a first acquisition module for acquiring item weight data (KO) in a refrigerator drawer (see citation on claim 1 and [0060], where “weight acquisition”);
a first comparison analysis module for performing comparison analysis with a preset comparison factor according to the acquired item weight data (KO) (see citation on claim 1 and [0059], where “comparing the weight”);
an alarm module for determining whether to activate an alarm or remind a user according to a result of the comparison analysis (see citation on claim 1 and [0056]).
Regarding claim 10, as best understood in view of indefiniteness rejection explained above, Barreto discloses a system wherein weight data of the refrigerator is acquired, see citation above on claim 1. Han further discloses a device wherein the device comprises:
a communication module for wirelessly connecting an external mobile terminal (see at least [0067] and fig 2);
a sending module for sending item (see at least [0107]);
a receiving module for receiving an instruction sent by the external mobile terminal (see at least 2).
Claim(s) 2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0301923 (“Barreto”), and in view of US 2023/0294484 (“Han”), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2017/0053516 (“Wu”).
Regarding claim 2, Barreto in view of Han does not discloses claim 2. Rejection relied on Han for car refrigerator. However, Wu discloses a method wherein the item detection method applied to a refrigerator wherein, before the step of acquiring the item weight data (KO) in the refrigerator drawer, the item detection method also comprises:
setting a shortest detection duration (TG) and a no-change detection duration (T1) (see at least [0013], where “the first storage duration reaches a threshold storage duration associated with the at least one food item”; first storage duration is interpreted as shorted detection duration and threshold storage duration is interpreted as no-change detection duration);
acquiring the item weight data (KG) being acquiring item weight data that exceeds the shortest detection time (TO) (see at least [0067]);
the step of performing comparison analysis with the preset comparison factor according to the acquired item weight data (KO) comprises (see at least [0070-71]):
if after the item weight data (KG) exceeds the no-change detection duration (T1), a change value of the item weight data is less than a preset change threshold, activating the alarm or reminding the user that the item has not been used for a long time (see at least [0023], where “The processor is also configured to acquire a first storage duration of the at least one food item; and generate a serving reminder message for reminding a user to serve the at least one food item when the first storage duration reaches a threshold storage duration associated with the at least one food item”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Barreto in view of Han to incorporate the teachings of Wu by including the above feature for reducing food waste by reminding user to use the food if food is stored for long time and not been used.
Regarding claim 4, Barreto in view of Han does not discloses claim 4. Rejection relied on Han for car refrigerator. However, Wu further discloses an item detection method applied to a refrigerator wherein, after the step of acquiring the item weight data (KO) in the refrigerator drawer, the item detection method also comprises:
acquiring a change parameter for the last N changes in the item weight data (KO) (see at least [0005], where “rate of consumption”);
analyzing to acquire habit factors of the user according to the change parameter for the last N changes in the item weight data (KO) (see at least [0007], where “acquiring habit information of a user”);
the habit factors comprising a change time period of the item weight data (KO) or a change quantity of the item weight data (KO) (see at least [0007-9]);
according to the habit factors, automatically starting a car refrigerator refrigeration system in advance; or
according to the habit factors, reminding the user whether the item is sufficient in quantity (see at least [0057] and [0118]).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0301923 (“Barreto”), and in view of US 2023/0294484 (“Han”), as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of US 2017/0053516 (“Wu”), as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of US 2019/0313246 (“Nix”).
Regarding claim 3, as best understood in view of indefiniteness rejection explained above, Wu further discloses an item detection method applied to a refrigerator wherein, before the step of acquiring the item weight data (KO) in the refrigerator drawer, the item detection method also comprises:
setting a first preset weight threshold (Kl) and a second preset weight threshold (K2) (see at least [0015], where “The processor is configured to acquire first information related to an amount of at least one food item remaining in a refrigerator; acquire a rate of consumption of the at least one food item; calculate a number of meal servings of the at least one food item based on the first information and the rate of consumption; and generate a reminder message when the number of meal servings is less than a threshold number of meal servings.”; where first information (amount of food in the refrigerator) is interpreted as second preset weight threshold. Meal servings less than a threshold is interpreted as first preset weight threshold. See also [0072]);
the step of performing comparison analysis with the preset comparison factor according to the acquired item weight data (KO) comprises:
if the item weight data (KO) is less than the first preset weight threshold (K1), activating an alarm or reminding the user that the item is insufficient (see at least [0015]).
Wu does not disclose the following limitation:
if the item weight data (KO) is greater than the second preset weight threshold (K2), activating the alarm or reminding the user that it is full of items.
However, Nix discloses a method wherein if the item weight data (KO) is greater than the second preset weight threshold (K2), activating the alarm or reminding the user that it is full of items (see at least [0208], where “if monitoring unit configuration 132e specifies a maximum or minimum value before an alarm condition”; maximum value is interpreted as second preset weight threshold).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Barreto in view of Han and Wu to incorporate the teachings of Nix by including the above feature for reducing food waste by reminding user that the refrigerator has reached its full capacity.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0301923 (“Barreto”), and in view of US 2023/0294484 (“Han”), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2021/0131718 (“Jeong”).
Regarding claim 5, Barreto further discloses a method wherein the item detection method comprises:
providing the car refrigerator with different areas (see at least fig 14 and 15, where various compartments inside the refrigerator are shown);
a manner of respectively acquiring the item quantity statuses in the different area (see at least [0056], where quantity of articles inside the refrigerator is determined):
setting up a camera device to identify item quantities in the different area (see at least [0077], where “monitoring means can include one or more cameras”).
Barreto in view of Han does not disclose refrigerator with a beverage area and a fruit area.
However, Jeong discloses a method wherein refrigerator with a beverage area and a fruit area (see at least [0065] and fig 4).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Barreto in view of Han to incorporate the teachings of Jeong by including the above feature for improving product shelf life by placing various items on the designated area.
Regarding claim 9, as best understood in view of indefiniteness rejection explained above, see citation on claims 2-5.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOHANA TANJU KHAYER whose telephone number is (408)918-7597. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 7 am-5.30 pm, PT.
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, Abby Lin can be reached on 571-270-3976. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SOHANA TANJU KHAYER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights