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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/25/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the Non-Final Office Action on 09/30/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status
This Office Action is in response to the remarks and amendments filed on 02/25/2026. The previous objections to the drawings, specification, and claims have been withdrawn. Furthermore, the previous 35 USC 112 and Nonstatutory Double Patenting rejections have also been withdrawn. Claims 65-77 and 79-85 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 internal cooling cavity has a dedicated coolant intake valve and coolant outtake valve to enable independent temperature control of each flume surface wall” in claim 81 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL. —The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 81-85 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.
In claim 81, Applicant has added the limitation wherein each internal cooling cavity has a dedicated coolant intake valve and coolant outtake valve to enable independent temperature control of each flume surface wall”. However, in paragraph [00103] of the filed specification, Applicant discloses “In embodiments wherein the device 1100 comprises a plurality of internal cooling cavities the coolant manifold 1106 can control the flow of coolant through each internal cooling cavity individually”. There is nothing in the originally filed claims, specification or drawings to support this newly added limitation. Thus, the newly added limitation is deemed to be NEW MATTER.
Claims 82-85 are also rejected due to dependency.
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 81-85 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.
Regarding claim 81, the claim recites “wherein each internal cooling cavity has a dedicated coolant intake valve and coolant outtake valve to enable independent temperature control of each flume surface wall” which renders the claim indefinite. Referring to paragraph [00103] of the specification, Applicant discloses “In embodiments wherein the device 1100 comprises a plurality of internal cooling cavities the coolant manifold 1106 can control the flow of coolant through each internal cooling cavity individually”. Therefore, the claimed structure is not supported by the drawings or specification. More clarity is requested.
Claim 81 recites the limitation “the at least one elongate trough” in lines 15-16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 82, the claim recites “an internal cooling cavity” which renders the claim indefinite. Claim 81 from which claim 82 depends discloses “three internal cooling cavities”. Therefore, it is unclear if the disclosed “internal cooling cavity” of claim 82 is part of the previously disclosed internal cooling cavities of claim 81 or it is in additional internal cooling cavity. More clarity is requested.
Claims 83-85 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 65-66 and 68 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 Hongbo (CN101963420A).
Regarding claim 65, Bortoletto teaches a device (ice maker 52 Fig. 2) for making clear ice (paragraph [0016]) comprising: at least one 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); at least one 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]); and at least one 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 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 at least one elongate trough during a freezing operation of the device (corresponds to the disclosed “ice making event” in paragraph [0020]), wherein the at least one 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 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).
Bortoletto teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach “wherein the constant flow of fluid comprises a turbulent flow, and wherein the turbulent flow is maintained throughout at least a portion of the freezing operation”.
However, Hongbo teaches wherein a constant flow of fluid (the disclosed “constant flow” of water in paragraph [19] corresponds to the constant flow of fluid of Bortoletto) comprises a turbulent flow (paragraph [19] where a person skilled in the art would recognize that the constant flow of water would be turbulent as a result of the actions of turbulence-generating devices 9 Fig. 2), and wherein the turbulent flow is maintained throughout at least a portion of a freezing operation (paragraph [19]) to purge any air bubbles contained within the water (paragraph [19]).
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 the constant flow of fluid comprises a turbulent flow, and wherein the turbulent flow is maintained throughout at least a portion of the freezing operation” in view of the teachings of Hongbo to purge any air bubbles contained within the water.
Regarding claim 66, 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).
Regarding claim 68 the combined teachings teach wherein the drain comprises a drain manifold (fluid reservoir 88 Fig. 4 of Bortoletto) that defines a single drain manifold cavity (corresponds to the cavity formed by fluid reservoir 88 Fig. 4 of Bortoletto) that is fluidly connected to the at least one elongate trough through a fluid exit portal (opening 97 Fig. 4 of Bortoletto) of the at least one elongate trough (Fig. 4 of Bortoletto).
Claim 67 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bortoletto and Hongbo as applied to claim 65 above, and further in view of Junge et al. (US 20200041186 A1, herein after referred to as Junge).
Regarding claim 67, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein the at least one elongate trough has a total depth divided into an ice-forming zone and a fluid overflow zone, and wherein a surface area of the flume surface wall is at least coextensive with the fluid overflow zone and comprises a thermally insulating material”.
However, Junge teaches wherein at least one elongate trough (mold cavity 136 Fig. 4 corresponds to the elongated trough 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 [0043]) and a fluid overflow zone (lower portion 136B Fig. 4 and paragraphs [0041] and [0043]), and wherein a surface area of a flume surface wall (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 (paragraphs [0041] and [0043]) to prevent ice to mushroom beyond the bounds of the elongate trough.
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 the at least one elongate trough has a total depth divided into an ice-forming zone and a fluid overflow zone, and wherein a surface area of the flume surface wall 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.
Claims 69-70 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bortoletto and Hongbo as applied to claim 65 above, and further in view of Abeygunawardana et al. (US 20200406172 A1, herein after referred to as Abeygunawardana) and Zhang et al. (CN107503263A, herein after referred to as Zhang).
Regarding claim 69, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein the drain manifold further comprises a drain flow divider insert within the drain manifold cavity”.
However, Abeygunawardana teaches wherein a drain manifold (water filter assembly 300 Fig. 5 corresponds to the drain manifold of Bortoletto) further comprises a drain flow divider insert (second filter layer 342 Fig. 13) within a drain manifold cavity (cavity 310 Figs. 7 and 13 corresponds to the drain manifold cavity of Bortoletto) to provide filtering for the drained water prior to future use.
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 the drain manifold further comprises a drain flow divider insert within the drain manifold cavity” in view of the teachings of Abeygunawardana to provide filtering for the drained water prior to future use.
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “the drain flow divider insert having a porosity of 10% open area to 50% open area”.
However, Zhang teaches a drain flow divider insert (seepage filter layer 10 Fig. 1 corresponds to the drain flow divider insert of Abeygunawardana) having a porosity of 10% open area to 50% open area (paragraph [17]) as a designer choice to filter the water.
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 “the drain flow divider insert having a porosity of 10% open area to 50% open area” in view of the teachings of Zhang as a designer choice to filter the water.
Regarding claim 70, the combined teachings teach wherein the drain flow divider insert is coupled to adjacent corners of the drain manifold cavity (Figs. 6 and 13 of Abeygunawardana), thereby dividing the drain manifold cavity into a first portion (corresponds to the section above second filter floor 344 Fig. 13 of Abeygunawardana) and a second portion (corresponds to the section below second filter floor 344 Fig. 13 of Abeygunawardana), wherein at least one drainage pipe (corresponds to the pipe connecting water filter assembly 300 to filtered water reservoir 214 Fig. 5 of Abeygunawardana) is in fluid communication with the first portion (Figs. 5 and 13 of Abeygunawardana), and wherein the fluid exit portal (the outlet of filter body 302 Fig. 13 of Abeygunawardana corresponds to the fluid exit portal of Bortoletto) is in fluid communication with the second portion (Figs. 5 and 13 of Abeygunawardana).
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “the drain flow divider insert forms an arcuate shape”.
However, Applicant has not disclosed that having “the drain flow divider insert forms an arcuate shape” does anything more than produce the predictable result of providing a divider insert inside the drain manifold cavity. Since it has been held that changes in shape have no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, see MPEP 2144.04 IV. B, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings and meet the claimed limitations in order to provide the predictable results of providing a divider insert inside the drain manifold cavity.
Claims 71-72 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bortoletto and Hongbo as applied to claim 65 above, and further in view of Broadbent (US 4990169).
Regarding claim 71, 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 72, 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”.
Claim 73 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bortoletto and Hongbo as applied to claim 65 above, and further in view of Kato et al. (US 6105385, herein after referred to as Kato).
Regarding claim 73, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “further comprising at least one lid configured to enclose the at least one elongate trough when the at least one trough is removably coupled to the housing”.
However, Kato teaches further comprising at least one lid (front cover 46 Fig. 3) configured to enclose at least one elongate trough (the elongated trough formed by two adjacent ice making plates 34 Fig. 2 corresponds to the elongated trough of Bortoletto) when the at least one trough is removably coupled to a housing (Figs. 1-2 where side plates 36 correspond to the housing of Bortoletto) to prevent the water from splashing forward (Col. 6 lines 1-8).
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 “further comprising at least one lid configured to enclose the at least one elongate trough when the at least one trough is removably coupled to the housing” in view of the teachings of Kato to prevent the water from splashing forward.
Claim 74 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bortoletto and Hongbo as applied to claim 65 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (CN106949685A, herein after referred to as Wang).
Regarding claim 74, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “further comprising one or more retractable inclusion holders configured to be disposed within a cavity defined by the at least one elongate trough”.
However, Wang teaches further comprising one or more retractable inclusion holders (resisting member 81 Fig. 1 and paragraph [20]) configured to be disposed within a cavity (corresponds to the cavity formed by ice cube mold 60 Fig. 1) defined by at least one elongate trough (Fig. 1 where ice cube mold 60 corresponds to the elongate trough of Bortoletto) to block food placed in the ice cavity (paragraph [20]).
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 “further comprising one or more retractable inclusion holders configured to be disposed within a cavity defined by the at least one elongate trough” in view of the teachings of Wang to block food placed in the ice cavity.
Claims 75-76 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bortoletto in view of Echigoya et al. (JP2009036416A, herein after referred to as Echigoya).
Regarding claim 5, 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”.
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. 7 corresponds to the flume surface wall of Bortoletto) to a temperature of less than zero degrees Celsius (paragraph [0069]) to gradually grow transparent ice (paragraph [0069]).
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” in view of the teachings of Echigoya to gradually grow transparent ice.
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 and Echigoya as applied to claim 75 above, and further in view of 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 and Echigoya as applied to claim 75 above, and further in view of Broadbent.
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 and 84 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bortoletto in view of Olson, JR. et al. (us 20170003062 A1, herein after referred to as Olson).
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 at least one elongate trough (Figs. 2-3).
Bortoletto teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach “wherein each internal cooling cavity has a dedicated coolant intake valve and coolant outtake valve to enable independent temperature control of each flume surface wall”.
However, Olson teaches wherein each internal cooling cavity (the internal passages of evaporators 205a-205c Fig. 8 correspond to the three internal cooling cavities of Bortoletto) has a dedicated coolant intake valve (liquid line valves 204 Fig. 8) and coolant outtake valve (suction line valves 209 Fig. 8) to enable independent temperature control (Figs. 9-12 where the evaporator are either in freezing mode or harvesting mode) of each flume surface wall (the surfaces of evaporators 205a-205c Fig. 8 on which the ice forms correspond to the three flume surface walls of Bortoletto) to maximize the system efficiency (paragraph [0004]).
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 internal cooling cavity has a dedicated coolant intake valve and coolant outtake valve to enable independent temperature control of each flume surface wall” in view of the teachings of Olson to maximize the system efficiency.
Regarding claim 82, 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), and a condenser (condenser 101 Fig. 3 of Bortoletto).
Regarding claim 84, the combined teachings teach wherein the plurality of elongate troughs comprises at least four troughs (Fig. 3 of Bortoletto) arranged in parallel and in a side by side arrangement (Fig. 3 of Bortoletto).
Claim 83 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bortoletto and Olson 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 [0043]) and a fluid overflow zone (lower portion 136B Fig. 4 and paragraphs [0041] and [0043]), 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 (paragraphs [0041] and [0043]) to prevent ice to mushroom beyond the bounds of the elongate trough.
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 and Olson 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”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims 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.
Conclusion
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 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