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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “rotatable wheels to support and guide said mechanism”, “a top cover”, “a bottom cover”, “at least one electric heater”, “a first temperature sensor”, “an electrically heated underside”, “a second temperature sensor”, “a third temperature sensor”, “an electrical connector”, “a plumbing fitting”, “a housing”, “a refrigerator-freezer”, all the limitations of claim 4, “ice crushing means”, “dispenser chute” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is not a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the application and does not include that which is new in the art to which the application pertains. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: “a first temperature sensor to monitor the temperature of the water, r. said plate having an electrically heated underside to prevent frost from building up due to evaporation from any unfrozen water in the molds, a second temperature sensor to monitor the heated underside of the plate”, all the limitations of claim 4.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “a refrigerator-freezer” in lines 40-41, 42-43 and 45. The limitation lacks antecedent basis and for examination purposes is interpreted to be -- the refrigerator-freezer --.
Claim 1 recites “An array” and is interpreted to be a typographical error and for examination purpose is interpreted to recite -- an array --.
Claims 2-3 recites “A device” which lacks antecedent basis with claim 1 and for examination purposes is interpreted to recite -- The ice maker --.
Claim 4 recites “A nearly silent icemaker” which lacks antecedent basis with claim 1 and for examination purposes is interpreted to recite -- The ice maker --.
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: “means to drive”, “means to eject”, “means to install”, “means to connect” in claim 1 and “ice crushing means” in claim 5.
“means to eject” corresponds to guide wall 105 in paragraph 0009.
“ice crushing means” corresponds to a pair of high-torque slow-turning rollers in paragraph 0028.
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
Claims 1-5 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.
Claim 1 further recites the limitations “means to drive”, “means to install” and “means to connect”. The term “means” invokes a claim interpretation governed under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph), which requires a review of the specification to determine the appropriate structure, material or act to carry out the claimed limitation. However, the specification as originally filed, fails to describe a corresponding structure or technique by which to drive or connect or install. A mere restatement of the function does not suffice as a statement of structure. Thus, it does not appear that applicant had possession of the claimed invention because the specification does not disclose a structure which is capable of driving or connecting or installing. When a description of the structure, material or act is not provided or is not sufficient to perform the entire claimed function, or no association between the structure and the claimed function can be found in the specification, the written description fails to clearly define the boundaries of the claim
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 1-5 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.
The term “very quiet” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “very quiet” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Thus, as used to qualify the nature of the ice maker, this term renders the same indeterminate and the claim (and all claims depending therefrom) indefinite with regard to the scope of protection sought thereby.
The term “quietly” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “quietly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Thus, as used to qualify the nature of the ice maker, this term renders the same indeterminate and the claim (and all claims depending therefrom) indefinite with regard to the scope of protection sought thereby.
Claim 1 recites “a mold” and “the molds” in lines 5, 9, 31-32, 39 which renders the claim indefinite. The claim previously recites “an array of individual flexible molds” and then recites “a mold” which lacks antecedent basis. For examination purposes the limitation is interpreted to recite -- at least one of the flexible molds --.
Claim 1 recites both “said” and “the” throughout the claim. The Examiner suggests picking one or the other for consistent claiming.
Claim 1 recites “said path” in line 5 which is interpreted to recite -- the serpentine path --.
Claim 1 recites “said ice may be ejected” which renders the claims indefinite. This language is indefinite because it’s not clear what is being claimed and what the scope is. This limitation is indefinite because it is not clear if the ice "is” ejected or "is not" required to be ejected. No person of ordinary skill in the art would know what “may” means with reasonable certainty. Therefore, the scope is unclear and for purposes of examination, the entire paragraph has been considered optional because of the “may”.
The term “essentially” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “essentially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Thus, as used to qualify the nature of the housing, this term renders the same indeterminate and the claim (and all claims depending therefrom) indefinite with regard to the scope of protection sought thereby.
Claim 1 recites “an essentially rectangular housing” and “a housing to contain the earlier claimed parts” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if it’s the same housing or a different housing. Clarity is advised.
Claim 1 recites “said mechanism” and “the mechanism” which is interpreted to recite -- the transport mechanism” for clarity.
Claim 1 recites “at least one electric heater” and “an electrically heated underside” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if it’s the same heater or a different heater. Clarity is advised.
The term “narrow slot” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “narrow” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Thus, as used to qualify the nature of the slot, this term renders the same indeterminate and the claim (and all claims depending therefrom) indefinite with regard to the scope of protection sought thereby.
The term “any mechanism-related contamination” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “mechanism-related contamination” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Thus, as used to qualify the nature of the contamination, this term renders the same indeterminate and the claim (and all claims depending therefrom) indefinite with regard to the scope of protection sought thereby.
Claim limitation “means to drive”, “means to install” and “means to connect” 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. The specification as originally filed, fails to describe a corresponding structure or technique by which to drive or connect or install.
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 term “nearly silent” in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “nearly silent” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Thus, as used to qualify the nature of the ice maker, this term renders the same indeterminate and the claim (and all claims depending therefrom) indefinite with regard to the scope of protection sought thereby.
Allowable Subject Matter
It appears the inventor(s) filed the current application pro se (i.e., without the benefit of representation by a registered patent practitioner). While inventors named as applicants in a patent application may prosecute the application pro se, lack of familiarity with patent examination practice and procedure may result in missed opportunities in obtaining optimal protection for the invention disclosed. The inventor(s) may wish to secure the services of a registered patent practitioner to prosecute the application, because the value of a patent is largely dependent upon skilled preparation and prosecution. The Office cannot aid in selecting a patent practitioner.
A listing of registered patent practitioners is available at https://oedci.uspto.gov/OEDCI/. Applicants may also obtain a list of registered patent practitioners located in their area by writing to Mail Stop OED, Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.
Claims 1-5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:\
Regarding claim 1, the subject matter which is considered to distinguish from the closest prior art of record, Shapiro et al (US 20010027654). The prior art of record teaches a conveyor system with a flexible conveyor belt with individual ice cube molds in contrast to the claimed features of A very quiet ice maker and dispenser for a refrigerator-freezer comprising: a. An array of individual flexible molds to form ice of a controlled shape and size, b. a transport mechanism to quietly move said molds along a continuous horizontal serpentine path, c. an ejection location along said path where said ice may be ejected from a mold, d. said path generally arranged in several straight rows to fit within an essentially rectangular housing, e. an array of hangers, each hanger having an upper portion attached to said mechanism and a lower portion attached to a mold, f. a horizontal plate positioned between said mechanism and said molds to support said mechanism and to protect said molds from any mechanism-related contamination, g. said plate having a narrow serpentine slot directly below the mechanism to allow the hangers to slide along said slot in unison with the mechanism, h. an array of rotatable wheels to support and guide said mechanism along said serpentine path, i. an electric motor with means to drive at least one of said wheels to propel said mechanism along its path, j. a top cover to bridge across the slot of the horizontal plate in multiple locations and to cover and protect said mechanism, k. a bottom cover below said molds to protect them from interference as they move along their path, l. an array of vertical guide walls between said rows to keep the moving molds from interfering with each other, m. means to eject ice from one mold at a time as each mold is moved to the ejection location, n. a supply line to deliver potable flowing water to refill each empty mold after it passes the ejection location, said water having a temperature above freezing o. at least one valve to control the flowing of said water, p. at least one electric heater to prevent said water from freezing on its way to a mold, q. a first temperature sensor to monitor the temperature of the water, r. said plate having an electrically heated underside to prevent frost from building up due to evaporation from any unfrozen water in the molds, s. a second temperature sensor to monitor the heated underside of the plate, t. a third temperature sensor to monitor the molds as they approach the ejection location, u. at least one position sensor to monitor a mold as it is being refilled, v. an electrical connector with means to connect to a mating connector in a refrigerator-freezer, w. a plumbing fitting with means to connect to a mating plumbing fitting in a refrigerator-freezer, x. a housing to contain the earlier claimed parts with means to install said housing into a refrigerator-freezer.
Therefore, it would not be obvious to modify the technique of the prior art structures to have the apparatus as claimed without improper hindsight and independent claim 1 with dependent claims therefrom are considered 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH J MARTIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3840. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4:30pm M-F.
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 on (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.
/ELIZABETH J MARTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763