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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/26/2026 has been entered.
Status
This Office Action is in response to the remarks and amendments filed on 08/26/2026. The previous objections to the drawings have been withdrawn. Furthermore, the previous 35 USC 112 rejections have also been withdrawn. Claims 65-77, 79-83, and 85-87 remain pending for consideration.
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 “wherein each of the three internal cooling cavities comprises one or more mesh grates” in claim 86 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 75-77 and 79-80 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 75 is objected to because Applicant failed to properly mark the following changes in the claim: “and wherein the cooling comprises varying a temperature of the at least one flume surface wall according to a predetermined temperature schedule during the freezing operation such that the temperature of the at least one flume surface wall decreases over a duration of the freezing operation”.
Claims 76-77 and 79-80 are also objected to due to dependency.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 65-77, 79-83, and 85-87 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 65 recites the limitation “fluid” in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For examination purposes, the phrase “wherein the at least one elongate trough is filled with fluid” will be interpreted as -- wherein the at least one elongate trough is filled with the fluid --
Regarding claim 75, the claim recites “wherein the at least one flume surface wall comprises a thermally conductive material and is monolithic with a cooling cavity wall of the cooling source such that the at least one flume surface wall and a coolant cavity wall are formed from a singular material” which renders the claim indefinite. As recited, the claim is confusing because it is not entirely clear if the disclosed “cooling cavity wall” and “coolant cavity wall” are referencing the same wall or different walls. More clarity is requested.
For examination purposes, the phrase “a coolant cavity wall” will be interpreted as -- the cooling cavity wall --
Regarding claim 75, the claim recites “cooling the at least one flume surface wall to a temperature of less than or equal to zero degrees Celsius, …, wherein the cooling comprises varying a temperature of the at least one flume surface wall” which renders the claim indefinite. As recited, the claim is confusing because it is not entirely clear if the temperature of the flume surface wall is maintained at a specific temperature or if it is varied over time. More clarity is requested.
Claim 81 recites the limitation “the temperature of each of the three flume surface walls” in line 19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For examination purposes, the phrase “the temperature of each of the three flume surface walls” will be interpreted as -- a temperature of each of the three flume surface walls --
Claims 66-74, 76-77, 79-80, 82-83, and 85-87 are also rejected due to dependency.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 75-76 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bortoletto et al. (US 20120324915 A1, herein after referred to as Bortoletto), in view of Echigoya et al. (JP2009036416A, herein after referred to as Echigoya), in view of Goerz (US 20180066881 A1), and in further view of Junge et al. (US 20200400363 A1, herein after referred to as Junge).
Regarding claim 75, Bortoletto teaches a method (the method described in paragraphs [0020] to [0021]) for manufacturing clear ice (paragraph [0021]) comprising: providing a device for making clear ice (ice maker 52 Fig. 2) comprising: a housing (housing 54 Fig. 2) comprising at least one flume surface wall (corresponds to the top surface of vertical fluid channel 84A Fig. 3) that defines at least one elongate trough (vertical fluid channel 84A Fig. 3); a fluid intake (fluid inlet aperture 96A Fig. 3) disposed to provide a flow of fluid (corresponds to the disclosed downward flow of water in paragraph [0020]) into the at least one elongate trough (paragraph [0020]); a drain (drain aperture 86A Fig. 3) disposed to drain fluid (disclosed “water” in paragraph [0020]) from the at least one elongate trough (paragraph [0020]); wherein at least a portion of the at least one flume surface wall (corresponds to the middle portion of vertical fluid channel 84A Fig. 3) is in thermal communication with a cooling source (ice forming member 72 Fig. 3); wherein the fluid intake and the drain are configured to provide a constant flow of fluid (corresponds to the disclosed “fluid streams” in paragraph [0021]) to the at least one elongate trough during a freezing operation of the device (corresponds to the disclosed “ice making event” in paragraph [0020]), the fluid intake comprising a fluid intake manifold (upper fluid channel 92 Fig. 4) that defines a single intake manifold cavity (corresponds to the cavity formed by upper fluid channel 92 Fig. 4) that is fluidly connected to the at least one elongate trough through a fluid entry portal (corresponds to the inlet of fluid inlet aperture 96A which is located inside upper fluid channel 92 Fig. 4); providing the constant flow of fluid down the at least one elongate trough (paragraph [0021]), wherein the fluid is supplied continuously (paragraph [0023]) from a fluid supply source (pump 120 Fig. 5) and exits through the drain (paragraph [0020]).
Bortoletto teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach “the method comprising: cooling the at least one flume surface wall to a temperature of less than or equal to zero degrees Celsius, wherein the at least one flume surface wall comprises a thermally conductive material, wherein the at least one flume surface wall serves as an ice-forming surface of the at least one elongate trough such that clear ice forms on the at least one flume surface wall during the freezing operation”.
However, Echigoya teaches a method (the method described in paragraphs [0061] to [0069] corresponds to the method of Bortoletto) comprising cooling at least one flume surface wall (ice making plate 21a Fig. 6 corresponds to the flume surface wall of Bortoletto) to a temperature of less than zero degrees Celsius (paragraph [0069]), wherein the at least one flume surface wall comprises a thermally conductive material (paragraph [0068]), wherein the at least one flume surface wall serves as an ice-forming surface of the at least one elongate trough (paragraph [0069]) such that clear ice (disclosed “transparent ice” in paragraph [0069]) forms on the at least one flume surface wall during a freezing operation (paragraph [0069] where the described freezing operation corresponds to that of Bortoletto) to only freeze water with less air and impurities (paragraph [0070]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the method of Bortoletto to include “the method comprising: cooling the at least one flume surface wall to a temperature of less than or equal to zero degrees Celsius, wherein the at least one flume surface wall comprises a thermally conductive material, wherein the at least one flume surface wall serves as an ice-forming surface of the at least one elongate trough such that clear ice forms on the at least one flume surface wall during the freezing operation” in view of the teachings of Echigoya to only freeze water with less air and impurities.
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein the at least one flume surface wall is monolithic with a cooling cavity wall of the cooling source such that the at least one flume surface wall and the cooling cavity wall are formed from a singular material”.
However, Goerz teaches wherein at least one flume surface wall (wall 21 Fig. 2 corresponds to the at least one flume surface wall of Bortoletto) is monolithic with a cooling cavity wall (Fig. 2 and paragraph [0071]) of a cooling source (the disclosed “refrigerant” in paragraph [0081] corresponds to the cooling source of Bortoletto) such that the at least one flume surface wall and the cooling cavity wall are formed from a singular material (Fig. 2 and paragraph [0071]) to minimize the number of structural members (paragraph [0008]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the method of the combined teachings to include “wherein the at least one flume surface wall is monolithic with a cooling cavity wall of the cooling source such that the at least one flume surface wall and the cooling cavity wall are formed from a singular material” in view of the teachings of Goerz to minimize the number of structural members.
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein the cooling comprises varying a temperature of the at least one flume surface wall according to a predetermined temperature schedule during the freezing operation such that the temperature of the at least one flume surface wall decreases over a duration of the freezing operation”.
However, Junge teaches wherein a cooling (the cooling method described in paragraph [0053] corresponds to the cooling of Echigoya) comprises varying a temperature (paragraph [0053] where it is understood that the temperature of the mold is varied since the mold is subjected to a temperature change rate) of at least one flume surface wall (mold cavity 136 Fig. 4 corresponds to the at least one flume surface wall of Bortoletto) according to a predetermined temperature schedule (disclosed “predetermined threshold rate” in paragraph [0053]) during a freezing operation (the freezing operation described in paragraph [0053] corresponds to the freezing operation of Bortoletto) such that the temperature of the at least one flume surface wall decreases over a duration of the freezing operation (paragraph [0053]) to prevent thermal cracking (paragraph [0053]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the method of the combined teachings to include “wherein the cooling comprises varying a temperature of the at least one flume surface wall according to a predetermined temperature schedule during the freezing operation such that the temperature of the at least one flume surface wall decreases over a duration of the freezing operation” in view of the teachings of Junge to prevent thermal cracking.
Regarding claim 76, the combined teachings teach wherein the cooling source comprises: an evaporator (evaporator 99 Fig. 3 of Bortoletto), a cold plate (ice forming member 72 Fig. 3 and paragraph [0021] of Bortoletto), or a condenser (condenser 101 Fig. 3 of Bortoletto).
Claim 77 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bortoletto in view of Echigoya, Goerz, and Junge as applied to claim 75 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (CN106949685A, herein after referred to as Wang).
Regarding claim 77, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach “wherein the device for making clear ice further comprises: one or more inclusion holders configured to be disposed within the at least one elongate trough and retracted in response to a predefined level of ice accumulation within a cavity defined by the at least one elongate trough”.
However, Wang teaches wherein a device for making clear ice (ice making equipment 100 Fig. 1 corresponds to the device of Bortoletto) further comprises: one or more inclusion holders (resisting member 81 Fig. 1) configured to be disposed within at least one elongate trough (Fig. 1 where the illustrated ice cube cavities correspond to the elongate trough of Bortoletto) and retracted in response (paragraph [20]) to a predefined level of ice accumulation (understood to be the height of grid 63 Figs. 1-2) within a cavity (Figs. 1-2) defined by the at least one elongate trough to increase the appearance and taste of the food contained in the tray (paragraph [23]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the method of the combined teachings to include “wherein the device for making clear ice further comprises: one or more inclusion holders configured to be disposed within the at least one elongate trough and retracted in response to a predefined level of ice accumulation within a cavity defined by the at least one elongate trough” in view of the teachings of Wang to increase the appearance and taste of the food contained in the tray.
Claims 79-80 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bortoletto in view of Echigoya, Goerz, and Junge as applied to claim 75 above, and further in view of Broadbent (US 4990169).
Regarding claim 79, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein the constant flow of fluid is provided at a velocity of at least 0.09 m/s (0.3 ft/s) through at least one elongate trough”.
However, Broadbent does teach in Col. 7 lines 19-31 that controlling the speed of the water flow will affect the clarity of the ice being generated.
Therefore, the fluid velocity is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is “wherein the constant flow of fluid is provided at a velocity of at least 0.09 m/s (0.3 ft/s) through at least one elongate trough”.
Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. controlling the velocity of the fluid flow, were disclosed in the prior art by Broadbent, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide an ice maker “wherein the constant flow of fluid is provided at a velocity of at least 0.09 m/s (0.3 ft/s) through at least one elongate trough”.
Regarding claim 80, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein the constant flow of fluid has a velocity of at least about 0.21 m/s (0.7 ft/s) through the at least one elongate trough”.
However, Broadbent does teach in Col. 7 lines 19-31 that controlling the speed of the water flow will affect the clarity of the ice being generated.
Therefore, the fluid velocity is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is “wherein the constant flow of fluid has a velocity of at least about 0.21 m/s (0.7 ft/s) through the at least one elongate trough”.
Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. controlling the velocity of the fluid flow, were disclosed in the prior art by Broadbent, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide an ice maker “wherein the constant flow of fluid has a velocity of at least about 0.21 m/s (0.7 ft/s) through the at least one elongate trough”.
Claims 81-82 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bortoletto in view of Kim (KR20040009562A).
Regarding claim 81, Bortoletto teaches a device (ice maker 52 Fig. 2) for making clear ice (paragraph [0016]) comprising: at least one housing (housing 54 Fig. 2) defining a plurality of elongate troughs (vertical fluid channels 84A-84E Fig. 3); at least one fluid intake (fluid inlet 94 Fig. 3) disposed to provide a flow of fluid (paragraph [0020] where it is disclosed that “water is continuously supplied”) into the plurality of elongate troughs (paragraph [0020]); and at least one drain (drain conduit 89 Fig. 4) disposed to drain fluid (paragraph [0018]) from the plurality of elongate troughs (paragraph [0018]), wherein at least a portion of an exterior of each of the plurality of elongate troughs (corresponds to the upper portions of vertical fluid channels 84A-84E Fig. 3) is in thermal communication with a cooling source (ice forming member 72 Fig. 3), wherein the at least one fluid intake and the at least one drain are configured to provide a constant flow of fluid (corresponds to the disclosed “fluid streams” in paragraph [0021]) to the plurality of elongate troughs during a freezing operation of the device (corresponds to the disclosed “ice making event” in paragraph [0020]), wherein the fluid intake comprises a fluid intake manifold (upper fluid channel 92 Fig. 4) that defines an intake manifold cavity (corresponds to the cavity formed by upper fluid channel 92 Fig. 4) that is fluidly connected to each of the plurality of elongate troughs through a plurality of fluid entry portals (corresponds to the inlets of fluid inlet apertures 96A-96E which are located inside upper fluid channel 92 Fig. 4), wherein the housing defines three internal cooling cavities (corresponds to the cavities that accommodate ice forming members 72 Figs. 2-3), each internal cooling cavity positioned adjacent to a respective one of three flume surface walls (top surface of vertical fluid channels 84A-84C Fig. 3) that define the plurality of elongate troughs (Figs. 2-3).
Bortoletto teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach “wherein each of the three internal cooling cavities is supplied by a unique coolant inlet and outlet during the freezing operation, and wherein a coolant manifold is configured to control a flow of coolant through each of the three internal cooling cavities individually during the freezing operation”.
However, Kim teaches wherein each of three internal cooling cavities (the internal cavities of ice-making plates 6a-6c Fig. 1 correspond to the three internal cooling cavities of Bortoletto) is supplied by a unique coolant inlet (refrigerant inlet 61 Fig. 1) and outlet (refrigerant outlet 62 Fig. 1) during a freezing operation (the “ice-making operation” described in paragraphs [0065] and [0066] corresponds to the freezing operation of Bortoletto), and wherein a coolant manifold (refrigerant supply line 1a Fig. 1) is configured to control a flow of coolant (paragraph [0065]) through each of the three internal cooling cavities individually during the freezing operation (paragraph [0065]) to improve the ice production efficiency (paragraph [0026]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of Bortoletto to include “wherein each of the three internal cooling cavities is supplied by a unique coolant inlet and outlet during the freezing operation, and wherein a coolant manifold is configured to control a flow of coolant through each of the three internal cooling cavities individually during the freezing operation” in view of the teachings of Kim to improve the ice production efficiency.
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein the unique coolant inlet and outlet enable control of a temperature of each of the three flume surface walls, and wherein the coolant manifold is configured to enable control of the temperature of each of the three flume surface walls”.
However, it is understood that the disclosed “wherein the unique coolant inlet and outlet enable control of a temperature of each of the three flume surface walls, and wherein the coolant manifold is configured to enable control of the temperature of each of the three flume surface walls” is an intended use recitation of the coolant inlet, the coolant outlet, and the coolant manifold. The Applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner which a claimed apparatus is intended to be does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, the claims are directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
Regarding claim 82, the combined teachings teach wherein each of the three internal cooling cavities is defined by the at least one housing (Fig. 3 of Bortoletto) and comprises a cold plate (ice-making plates 6a-6c Fig. 1 of Kim).
Claim 83 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bortoletto in view of Kim as applied to claim 81 above, and further in view of Junge.
Regarding claim 83, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein each of the plurality of elongate troughs has a total depth divided into an ice-forming zone and a fluid overflow zone, and wherein a portion of an internal surface of each of the plurality of elongate troughs is at least coextensive with the fluid overflow zone and comprises a thermally insulating material”.
However, Junge teaches wherein each of a plurality of elongate troughs (mold cavities 136 Figs. 3-44 correspond to the plurality of elongated troughs of Bortoletto) has a total depth (the combination of upper portion 136A and lower portion 136B Fig. 4) divided into an ice-forming zone (upper portion 136A Fig. 4 and paragraph [0042]) and a fluid overflow zone (lower portion 136B Fig. 4 and paragraph [0042]), and wherein a portion of an internal surface of each of the plurality of elongate troughs (lower area of the interior wall of mold cavity 136 Fig. 4) is at least coextensive with the fluid overflow zone (Fig. 4) and comprises a thermally insulating material (paragraph [0042]) to prevent ice to mushroom beyond the bounds of the elongate trough (paragraph [0041]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “wherein each of the plurality of elongate troughs has a total depth divided into an ice-forming zone and a fluid overflow zone, and wherein a portion of an internal surface of each of the plurality of elongate troughs is at least coextensive with the fluid overflow zone and comprises a thermally insulating material” in view of the teachings of Junge to prevent ice to mushroom beyond the bounds of the elongate trough.
Claim 85 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bortoletto in view of Kim as applied to claim 81 above, and further in view of Broadbent.
Regarding claim 85, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein the constant flow of fluid is provided at a velocity of at least 0.09 m/s (0.3 ft/s) through at least one of the plurality of elongate troughs”.
However, Broadbent does teach in Col. 7 lines 19-31 that controlling the speed of the water flow will affect the clarity of the ice being generated.
Therefore, the fluid velocity is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is “wherein the constant flow of fluid is provided at a velocity of at least 0.09 m/s (0.3 ft/s) through at least one of the plurality of elongate troughs”.
Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. controlling the velocity of the fluid flow, were disclosed in the prior art by Broadbent, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide an ice maker “wherein the constant flow of fluid is provided at a velocity of at least 0.09 m/s (0.3 ft/s) through at least one of the plurality of elongate troughs”.
Claim 86 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bortoletto in view of Kim as applied to claim 81 above, and further in view of Maeno et al. (JP2015021627A, herein after referred to as Maeno).
Regarding claim 86, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein each of the three internal cooling cavities comprises one or more mesh grates configured to facilitate an even flow and distribution of coolant within the respective internal cooling cavity during the freezing operation”.
However, Maeno teaches wherein an internal cooling cavity (refrigerant flow path 31 corresponds to each of the three internal cooling cavities of Bortoletto) comprises one or more mesh grates (thermal conductive member 550 Figs. 17-18 and paragraph [82]) configured to facilitate an even flow and distribution of coolant (paragraph [83] where thermal conductive member 550 suppresses “the increase in pressure loss” of the refrigerant which would promote a more uniform flow ) within the internal cooling cavity during a freezing operation (paragraphs [50] and [83] where the described ice making operation corresponds to the freezing operation of Bortoletto) to increase the cooling effect of the internal cooling cavity (paragraph [83]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “wherein each of the three internal cooling cavities comprises one or more mesh grates configured to facilitate an even flow and distribution of coolant within the respective internal cooling cavity during the freezing operation” in view of the teachings of Maeno to increase the cooling effect of the internal cooling cavity.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 11-14, filed on 08/26/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 75 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly found prior art Goertz and Junge.
Claim 75 has been amended to recite “wherein the at least one flume surface wall is monolithic with a cooling cavity wall of the cooling source such that the at least one flume surface wall and the cooling cavity wall are formed from a singular material” and “wherein the cooling comprises varying a temperature of the at least one flume surface wall according to a predetermined temperature schedule during the freezing operation such that the temperature of the at least one flume surface wall decreases over a duration of the freezing operation”.
Goerz teaches wherein at least one flume surface wall (wall 21 Fig. 2 corresponds to the at least one flume surface wall) is monolithic with a cooling cavity wall (Fig. 2 and paragraph [0071]) of a cooling source (the disclosed “refrigerant” in paragraph [0081] corresponds to the cooling source) such that the at least one flume surface wall and the cooling cavity wall are formed from a singular material (Fig. 2 and paragraph [0071]) to minimize the number of structural members (paragraph [0008]).
Junge teaches wherein a cooling (the cooling method described in paragraph [0053]) comprises varying a temperature (paragraph [0053] where it is understood that the temperature of the mold is varied since the mold is subjected to a temperature change rate) of at least one flume surface wall (mold cavity 136 Fig. 4 corresponds to the at least one flume surface wall) according to a predetermined temperature schedule (disclosed “predetermined threshold rate” in paragraph [0053]) during a freezing operation (the freezing operation described in paragraph [0053]) such that the temperature of the at least one flume surface wall decreases over a duration of the freezing operation (paragraph [0053]) to prevent thermal cracking (paragraph [0053]).
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 14-16, filed on 08/26/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 81 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly found prior art Kim.
Claim 81 has been amended to recite “the plurality of elongate troughs, wherein each of the three internal cooling cavities is supplied by a unique coolant inlet and outlet to enable control of the temperature of each of the three flume surface walls during the freezing operation, and wherein a coolant manifold is configured to control a flow of coolant through each of the three internal cooling cavities individually to enable control of the temperature of each of the three flume surface walls during the freezing operation”.
Kim teaches wherein each of three internal cooling cavities (the internal cavities of ice-making plates 6a-6c Fig. 1 correspond to the three internal cooling cavities) is supplied by a unique coolant inlet (refrigerant inlet 61 Fig. 1) and outlet (refrigerant outlet 62 Fig. 1) during a freezing operation (the “ice-making operation” described in paragraphs [0065] and [0066]), and wherein a coolant manifold (refrigerant supply line 1a Fig. 1) is configured to control a flow of coolant (paragraph [0065]) through each of the three internal cooling cavities individually during the freezing operation (paragraph [0065]) to improve the ice production efficiency (paragraph [0026]).
The combined teachings of Bortoletto and Kim teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein the unique coolant inlet and outlet enable control of a temperature of each of the three flume surface walls, and wherein the coolant manifold is configured to enable control of the temperature of each of the three flume surface walls”.
However, it is understood that the disclosed “wherein the unique coolant inlet and outlet enable control of a temperature of each of the three flume surface walls, and wherein the coolant manifold is configured to enable control of the temperature of each of the three flume surface walls” is an intended use recitation of the coolant inlet, the coolant outlet, and the coolant manifold. The Applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner which a claimed apparatus is intended to be does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, the claims are directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 65-74 and 87 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
Reasons for Indicating Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim “65”, the prior art of record when consider as a whole, alone or in combination, neither anticipates nor renders obvious “a device for making clear ice comprising: at least one housing comprising at least one flume surface wall that defines at least one elongate trough; at least one fluid intake disposed to provide a flow of fluid into the at least one elongate trough; and at least one drain disposed to drain fluid from the at least one elongate trough, wherein at least a portion of the at least one flume surface wall is in thermal communication with a cooling source, wherein the at least one fluid intake and the at least one drain are configured to provide a constant flow of fluid to the at least one elongate trough during a freezing operation of the device, wherein the at least one fluid intake comprises a fluid intake manifold that defines an intake manifold cavity that is fluidly connected to the at least one elongate trough through a fluid entry portal, wherein the constant flow of fluid comprises a turbulent flow through a length of the at least one elongate trough, wherein the at least one elongate trough is filled with the fluid during the turbulent flow, and wherein the turbulent flow is maintained throughout at least a portion of the freezing operation, and wherein the at least one elongate trough is defined by a base flume surface wall and two side flume surface walls, and wherein ice forms on at least a portion of the base flume surface wall and the two side flume surface walls simultaneously during the freezing operation”.
The closet prior art reference(s), Bortoletto (US 20120324915 A1) and Hongbo (CN101963420A), teach “a device for making clear ice comprising: at least one housing comprising at least one flume surface wall that defines at least one elongate trough; at least one fluid intake disposed to provide a flow of fluid into the at least one elongate trough; and at least one drain disposed to drain fluid from the at least one elongate trough, wherein at least a portion of the at least one flume surface wall is in thermal communication with a cooling source, wherein the at least one fluid intake and the at least one drain are configured to provide a constant flow of fluid to the at least one elongate trough during a freezing operation of the device, wherein the at least one fluid intake comprises a fluid intake manifold that defines an intake manifold cavity that is fluidly connected to the at least one elongate trough through a fluid entry portal, wherein the constant flow of fluid comprises a turbulent flow through a length of the at least one elongate trough, and wherein the turbulent flow is maintained throughout at least a portion of the freezing operation, and wherein the at least one elongate trough is defined by a base flume surface wall and two side flume surface walls, and wherein ice forms on at least a portion of the base flume surface wall and the two side flume surface walls simultaneously during the freezing operation”.
However, the reference(s) fail(s) to disclose, suggest or teach “wherein the at least one elongate trough is filled with the fluid during the turbulent flow”.
Therefore, independent claim 65 with dependent claims therefrom (claims 66-74 and 87) are considered allowable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMBA NMN GAYE whose telephone number is (571)272-8809. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 4:30AM to 2:30PM.
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 at 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.
/SAMBA NMN GAYE/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights