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 Objections
Claims 1-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The reference number in claims 1-15 should be removed.
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:
the limitation “a control device” in claim 1 includes a generic/nonce term “device” coupled with function “control” without reciting sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. A return to the specification provides the limitation “a control device” can be implemented in various ways, such as “a controller” see figure 7. Therefore, the limitation is interpreted as the same or equivalents thereof;
the limitation “an opening mechanism” in claim 4 includes a generic/nonce term “mechanism” coupled with function “opening” without reciting sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. A return to the specification provides the limitation “an opening mechanism” can be implemented in various ways, such as “an actuator” 12 and “a thrust element” 13; see figure 4. Therefore, the limitation is interpreted as the same or equivalents thereof.
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 § 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) 1-3, 11-12 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al. (CN116067072A) in view of Kim et al. (EP3470757B1).
Regarding claim 1, Zhu discloses refrigerator comprising:
a main body (see figure 4) provided with a cooling chamber (120; see figure 4);
a door (110) hinged to the main body (see figure 4) and movable between a stationary closed position, in which the door (110) closes the cooling chamber (see figure 4), and a fully open position (see figure 4);
a position sensor (121, 122 and 111) configured to detect current positions (opening degree of the revolving door body 110) of a reference portion (111) of the door (110) relative to a reference portion (121 and 122) of the main body (see figure 4);
a lighting system (131) comprising at least one light source (the lamp) arranged within the chamber (120; see figure 4);
a control device (140), configured to activate the at least one light source (the lamp) in response to a command (signal) given by a user on the door (110; see figure 4);
the control device (140) being configured to activate the at least one light source (the lamp) when the variation of the current position (the opening degree of the door 110 in the second state) with respect to a reference position (the position of door) is greater (exceeds), in absolute value, than an activation threshold (the second preset opening degree; paragraph 3-4 of page 14 to paragraph 1 of page 16).
However, Zhu fails to disclose the door (110) being provided with at least one transparent portion.
Kim teaches a refrigerator comprising a door being provided with at least one transparent portion (paragraph 1 of page 3 and lines 13-15 of page 5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the refrigerator of Zhu to incorporate the claimed transparent feature for door as taught by Kim in order to visually observe the interior condition of the cooling storage.
Regarding claim 2, Zhu discloses the control device (140) is configured to identify an open-door condition (the door is opened) on the basis of the current position (the opening degree in the first state or second state) detected (paragraphs 3-4 of page 14).
Regarding claim 3, Zhu discloses the control device (140) is configured to switch off the at least one light source (the illuminating lamp) if, after switching on the at least one light source (the lamp), an open-door condition (the first switch and second switch are in the off state) is not detected within a time limit (when the accumulated second duration exceeds the second preset time; the last paragraph of page 14 to paragraph 1 of page 15).
Regarding claim 11, Zhu discloses the control device (140) is configured to activate the at least one light source (the lamp) when the user exerts pressure (the push; it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date that the open or close of the door by the user is eight push or pull) on the door (110) such that the variation of the current position (the opening degree of the door) is negative and exceeds, in absolute value, the activation threshold (the second preset opening degree; the last paragraph of page 14 to paragraph 1 of page 15).
Regarding claim 12, Zhu discloses the control device (140) is configured to activate the at least one light source (lamp) when the user exerts a pull (it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date that the open or close of the door by the user is eight push or pull) on the door (110) such that the variation of the current position (the opening degree of the door) is positive and greater, in absolute value, than the activation threshold (the second preset opening degree; the last paragraph of page 14 to paragraph 1 of page 15).
Regarding claim 14, Zhu as modified discloses method for controlling the automatic lighting of a refrigerator (see figure 4); the refrigerator comprising:
a main body provided with a cooling chamber (130; see figure 4);
a door (110) hinged to the main body and movable between a stationary closed position, in which the door (110) closes the cooling chamber (130), and a fully open position (see figure 4); the door (110) being provided with at least one transparent portion (see paragraph 1 of page 3 and lines 13-15 of page 5 of Kim);
a position sensor (111, 121 and 122) configured to detect current positions (the opening degree of the door 110) of a reference portion (111) of the door (110) relative to a reference portion (121 and 122) of the main body (see figure 4);
a lighting system (131) comprising at least one light source (the illuminating lamp) arranged within the chamber (130; see figure 4);
the method comprising the step of activating the at least one light source (the lamp) in response to a command (open or close of the door 110) given by a user on the door (110; see figure 4); the step of activating the at least one light source (the lamp) comprising activating the at least one light source (lamp) when the variation of the current position (the opening degree of the door 110) with respect to a reference position (the position of the door) is greater, in absolute value, than an activation threshold (the second preset opening degree; paragraph 3-4 of page 14 to paragraph 1 of page 16).
Regarding claim 15, Zhu as modified discloses the steps of: identifying an open-door condition (opening of door 110) on the basis of the current position detected (the detected opening degree of the door; the last paragraph of page 14 to paragraph 1 of page 15);
switching-off the at least one light source (the lamp extinguished) if, after switching on the at least one light source (11), an open-door condition (the opening degree of the door corresponding to the first and second switches are in off state) is not detected within a time limit (the last paragraph of page 14 to paragraph 1 of page 15).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-10 and 13 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The primary reference Zhu taken alone or in combination fails to disclose the claimed control features of the refrigerator as required in claim 4-10 and 13. Ito (CN108375268A) teaches an opening mechanism configured to push a door (15) from the stationary closed position towards the fully open position in response to an opening command issued by a user (31; see figures 1-4). Chang et al. (CN107076503A) teaches an opening mechanism (25; see figure 1-4) configured to push a door (15) from the stationary closed position towards the fully open position in response to an opening command issued by a user (see figures 1-17). The prior art of record fails to provide further teachings or motivation to modify the refrigerator of Zhu to arrive the claim invention. Therefore, claims 4-10 and 13 are allowable.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KUN KAI MA whose telephone number is (571)-270-3530. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9am-6pm.
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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached on 5712707740. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/KUN KAI MA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights