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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“installation assistance feature” in claims 1, 7 and 17.
“disengagement member” in claim 14.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-10 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mitchell et al. US 2018/0008914.
Claims 1 and 17, Mitchell teaches an appliance (10) comprising: a fluid flow path (at 114, 112), a filter receiving portion (110) configured to receive a filter and fluidly connect the filter to the fluid flow path, the filter receiving portion comprises an installation assistance feature (including 140, 141), wherein when the filter is in an installed position the filter is fluidly connected to the fluid flow path and a controller (120) configured to: receive an indication that the filter is in a first position, wherein the first position is relative to the filter receiving portion so as to enable initiation of an installation procedure to cause the filter to move to the installed position, wherein the installation procedure utilizes the installation assistance feature and cause, based on the indication that the filter is in the first position, activation of the installation assistance feature to reposition the filter from the first position towards the installed position (fig. 1-3, 11, par 8-10).
Claims 2-3, 6-10 and 18, Mitchell further teaches a filter sensor (144) configured to sense when the filter is in a first position, and the indication that the filter is in the first position is based on sensor data from the filter sensor (fig. 3, par 39-40); a filter sensor (144) the controller is configured to receive an indication from the filter sensor that the filter is in the installed position (fig. 3, par 39-40); the appliance is a refrigerator (fig. 1); the installation assistance feature is configured to move the filter in a first direction without the filter rotating relative to the appliance (fig. 3, 8-10, par 44, 50); the installation assistance feature further comprises a first member (140) configured to rotate about a first axis, the first member comprises an inclined track (141) is configured to receive the filter, wherein, upon rotation of the first member and the inclined track, the filter moves along the first axis without rotating relative to the appliance (fig. 3, 8-10, par 44, 50); the installation assistance feature further comprises a motor (130) and a drive gear (132), the motor is configured to operate to cause the drive gear to rotate to cause the rotation of the first member (fig. 3, 8-9); and the filter defines a key (182) and the appliance defines a recess configured to receive the key, wherein, when the key is received in the recess the recess is configured to prevent rotation of the filter relative to the appliance while the filter moves to the installed position (fig. 10).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 4-5, 11-12 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchell et al. US 2018/0008914 in view of Krause et al. US 2012/0297817.
Claims 4 and 16, Mitchell teaches the appliance of claim 3 which includes a touch screen display (par 39) but does not the controller configured to provide a notification to a user that the filter is in the installed position.
Krause teaches a filter receiving portion configured to receive a filter and fluidly connect the filter to a fluid flow path, and a filter sensor (72) and a controller (88) configured to receive an indication from the filter sensor that the filter is in an installed position, and the controller is further configured to provide a notification to a user that the filter is in the installed position, by sending a signal to a display, using a light or a sound (fig. 3, par 26). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the controller provide a notification to the user, such as through the display of Mitchell, to allow the user to know if the filter is properly installed (par 26).
Claim 5, Krause also teaches the controller configured to reset, a timer corresponding to an estimated time of replacement of the filter (par 26). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the controller reset a timer to allow the controller to track the time of use of the filter to provide a notification to the user of when the filter would need to be replaced (par 26-29).
Claim 11, Mitchell teaches the appliance of claim 1 with a filter sensor but does not teach the controller configured to determine if the filter is approved or to affect operation of the appliance.
Krause teaches a filter sensor (72) and the controller (88) is configured to determine, based on the sensor data from the filter sensor, if the filter is approved and to adversely affect operation of the appliance if the filter is not approved (par 26-28). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the controller configured as claimed in order to ensure only a proper filter is used in the appliance to ensure adequate filtering of water in the system.
Claim 12, Krause teaches operation of the system can be discontinued so that nor further water is provided through the inlet (par 27) but does not specifically teach a valve. Valves are very common in the water filter art to prevent the flow of water through a system and would have been an obvious structure to ensure that no further water is provided through the inlet as Krause teaches. The claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 13, the closest prior art to Mitchell teaches the appliance of claim 1 but does not teach the filter receiving portion comprises a magnetic material. The use a magnetic material in a receiving portion configured to form a magnetic bond with a filter is a known technique in the art as demonstrated by Chandra (US 2019/0351352. Magnets (300, 310) within a filter receiving portion form a magnetic bond with magnets (272, 274) on a filter (fig. 5-6). The magnets in Chandra hold the filter in an installed position and therefore it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the prior to have magnets hold the filter in the recited first position.
Claims 14 and 15 are allowable as depending from claim 13.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2019/0351352 Chandra et al.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN M KURTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-8211. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5.
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, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached at 571-270-3240. 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.
/BENJAMIN M KURTZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779