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 Status
Claims 1-20. Claims 1, 3, 5, 8, 10, and 12 are amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, and 10-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hays et al. (US 2023/0366602 A1), hereafter referred to as “Hays,” in view of Ueding, Jr. (1,957,865).
Regarding Claim 1: Hays teaches an ice mold (10), comprising: a body (12) having a bottom and four side walls (see Figures 1-2) connected together (see Figures 1-2) and to the bottom to form a compartment (22); a planar stamp (28) having an image (paragraph [0021]) formed on a top side (see Figure 1); secure the stamp (28) inside and on the bottom (at 30) of the compartment (22); and wherein the planar stamp (28) is secured inside to the bottom (at 30) of the compartment (22).
Hays fails to teach tabs secured to and protruding from an opposing bottom side of the planar stamp; apertures on the bottom of the compartment for receiving the tabs on the bottom side of the planar stamp to properly position and secure the stamp inside and on the bottom of the compartment; and wherein the planar stamp is secured inside to the bottom of the compartment by locating the tabs on the bottom side of the planar stamp within the apertures on the bottom of the compartment.
Ueding teaches tabs (15, 115) secured to and protruding from an opposing bottom side of a surface (see Figures 1 and 3); apertures (16, 116) on a bottom of another surface for receiving the tabs (pins 15, 116) on the bottom side of the surface to properly position and secure a flange (12) inside and on the bottom of another flange (other 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided tabs secured to and protruding from an opposing bottom side of the planar stamp; apertures on the bottom of the compartment for receiving the tabs on the bottom side of the planar stamp to properly position and secure the stamp inside and on the bottom of the compartment; and wherein the planar stamp is secured inside to the bottom of the compartment by locating the tabs on the bottom side of the planar stamp within the apertures on the bottom of the compartment to the structure of Hays as taught by Ueding in order to advantageously provide secure attachment between the two pieces used in the mold tray (see Page 1, lines 55-65 of Ueding).
Regarding Claim 2: Hays teaches that wherein the body (12) is construction of a flexible material (rubber, paragraphs [0023] and [0035]).
Regarding Claim 3: Hays modified supra teaches further comprising: tabs (16, 116 of Ueding) inside and secured to and protruding from the bottom of the compartment (22 of Hays as taught by 12, 112 of Ueding); and the planar stamp (28 of Hays) includes apertures for receiving the tabs in the bottom of the compartment (as taught by Page 1, lines 55-65 of Ueding) to properly position and secure the planar stamp (28) inside and to the bottom of the compartment (28 and 22 of Hays modified with tabs and apertures as taught by Page 1, lines 55-65 of Ueding)
Regarding Claim 4: Hays teaches wherein the stamp (28) is constructed of a flexible material (rubber, paragraphs [0023] and [0035]).
Regarding Claim 6: Hays teaches wherein the body (12) is divided into multiple compartments (22, see Figure 7) by a dividing wall (24, 26) so as to enable the ice mold to form multiple ice cubes simultaneously (see Figure 7, paragraph [0020]).
Regarding Claim 7: Hays teaches wherein the stamp (28) is located within one of the multiple compartments (22, see Figure 7, paragraph [0020]).
Regarding Claim 10: Hays teaches an ice mold (10), comprising; a body (12) having a bottom and four side walls connected together and to the bottom to form a compartment (22); a planar stamp (28) having an image formed on a first side (see Figure 1) and secure the planar stamp (22) inside and to the bottom of the compartment (via 30 in 22); and wherein the planar stamp (28) is secured to the bottom (via 30) of the compartment (22).
Hays fails to teach tabs secured to and protruding from inside the bottom of the compartment; and apertures on an opposing second side, wherein the planar stamp includes the apertures for receiving the tabs on the bottom of the compartment to properly position and secure the planar stamp inside and to the bottom of the compartment; and wherein the planar stamp is secured to the bottom of the compartment by locating the tabs on the bottom of the compartment within the apertures on the second side of the planar stamp.
Ueding teaches tabs (pins 15, 115) secured to and protruding from a bottom of a surface (12); and apertures (holes 16, 116) on an opposing another surface (other 12), wherein the surface (12) includes the apertures (holes 16, 116) for receiving the tabs (pins 15, 115) on another surface (other 12) to properly position and secure the surface (first 12) to another surface (other 12, see Figures 1 and 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided tabs secured to and protruding from inside the bottom of the compartment; and apertures on an opposing second side, wherein the planar stamp includes the apertures for receiving the tabs on the bottom of the compartment to properly position and secure the planar stamp inside and to the bottom of the compartment; and wherein the planar stamp is secured to the bottom of the compartment by locating the tabs on the bottom of the compartment within the apertures on the second side of the planar stamp to the structure of Hays as taught by Ueding in order to advantageously provide secure attachment between the two pieces used in the mold tray (see Page 1, lines 55-65 of Ueding).
Regarding Claim 11: Hays teaches that wherein the body (12) is construction of a flexible material (rubber, paragraphs [0023] and [0035]).
Regarding Claim 12: Hays modified supra further comprising: tabs (pins 15 of 13 of Ueding) secured to and protruding from the second side of the planar stamp (28 of Hays modified with tabs and apertures as taught by Page 1, lines 55-65 of Ueding); and the bottom of the compartment (22 of Hays) includes apertures for receiving the tabs on the second side of the planar stamp (bottom of 28 of Hays) to properly position and secure the planar stamp (28 of Hays) inside and to the bottom of the compartment (28 and 22 of Hays modified with tabs and apertures as taught by Page 1, lines 55-65 of Ueding).
Regarding Claim 13: Hays teaches wherein the stamp (28) is constructed of a flexible material (rubber, paragraphs [0023] and [0035]).
Regarding Claims 14: Hays teaches wherein the body (12) is divided into multiple compartments (22) so as to enable the ice mold to form multiple ice cubes simultaneously (see Figure 7, paragraph [0020]).
Regarding Claim 15: Hays teaches wherein the planar stamp (28) is located within one of the multiple compartments (22, see Figure 7).
Regarding Claim 16: Hays teaches wherein the image on the top side of the planar stamp (28) is embedded into the planar stamp (see Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 17: Hays teaches wherein the image on the top side of the planar stamp (28) is raised above the top side of the planar stamp (see Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 18: Hays teaches wherein the image on the first side of the planar stamp (28) is embedded into the planar stamp (see Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 19: Hays teaches wherein the image on the first side of the planar stamp (28) is raised above the top side of the planar stamp (see Figure 1).
Claims 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hays et al. (US 2023/0366602 A1), hereafter referred to as “Hays,” in view of Ueding, Jr. (1,957,865), as applied to claims 1 and 3 above, and further in view of Lee (2,106,009).
Regarding Claim 5: Hays modified supra fails to teach wherein the apertures in the bottom of the compartment pass through the bottom of the body.
Lee teaches apertures (15, 16) in a bottom of a compartment (10) pass through a bottom of a body (see Figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the apertures in the bottom of the compartment pass through the bottom of the body to the structure of Hays modified supra as taught by Lee in order to advantageously provide the connector through the secondary body for securing two pieces of the mold together (Page 1, Column 1, lines 45-55 to Column 2, lines 1-22 of Lee).
Regarding Claim 8: Hays modified supra fails to teach wherein the apertures on the bottom of the planar stamp pass through the planar stamp.
Lee teaches apertures (15, 16) on a bottom of a planar stamp (10) pass through a planar stamp (see Figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein the apertures on the bottom of the planar stamp pass through the planar stamp to the structure of Hays modified supra as taught by Lee in order to advantageously provide the connector through the secondary body for securing two pieces of the mold together (Page 1, Column 1, lines 45-55 to Column 2, lines 1-22 of Lee).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hays et al. (US 2023/0366602 A1), hereafter referred to as “Hays,” in view of Ueding, Jr. (1,957,865), and Lee (2,106,009) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Eaton (2,514,942).
Regarding Claim 9: Hays modified supra fails to teach further comprising; feet below the bottom of the body to elevate the bottom of the body above a surface so as to enable the tabs of the planar stamp to pass completely through the bottom of the body.
Eaton teaches feet (20) below a bottom of a body (10) to elevate the bottom of the body above a surface (see Figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided feet below the bottom of the body to elevate the bottom of the body above a surface so as to enable the tabs of the planar stamp to pass completely through the bottom of the body to the structure of Hays modified supra as taught by Eaton in order to advantageously provide access under the tray (see Eaton, Column 2, lines 44-47).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hays et al. (US 2023/0366602 A1), hereafter referred to as “Hays,” in view of Ueding, Jr. (1,957,865), as applied to claims 1 above, and further in view of De Brocke (2,505,947).
Regarding Claim 20: Hays modified supra fails to teach further comprising: a handle on a top of the body.
De Brocke teaches a handle (2) on a top of a body (1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a handle on a top of the body to the structure of Hays modified supra as taught by De Brocke in order to advantageously provide the user a place to grasp the body to flex the mold to remove the ice cubes (see Figure 3 of De Brocke).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Messina (US 2005/0095334 A1).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIRSTIN U OSWALD whose telephone number is (571)270-3557. The examiner can normally be reached 10 a.m. - 6 p.m. 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, Len Tran can be reached at 571-272-1184. 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.
/KIRSTIN U OSWALD/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/LEN TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763