DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Status
Claims 1-8, 10-12 and 15-16 are pending. Claims 9 and 13-14 have been canceled.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “45” has been used to designate both basket, ice slurry supply tube and reference sign. 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. 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 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: a sweeping unit, ice production unit, a stirring device, a holding unit, a driving unit, and a flow forming unit in the pending claims.
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wilkerson (4,538,428).
Regarding Claim 1: Wilkerson teaches an ice-making device (see Figures 1-4) comprising: an ice slurry production tank storing brine (10, sea water, Column 3, line 68); and an ice production unit (28) arranged inside the ice slurry production tank (10), the ice production unit (28) being able to be immersed in the brine (10, sea water, Column 3, line 68), wherein the ice production unit (14, 28) includes: an ice-making plate (30, 40) circulating refrigerant (via pipes 50), which is supplied by a freezing machine (refrigeration plant external to tank 10, Column 2, lines 50-52), inside thereof and including an ice-making surface (outer surface of 30), which generates ice of the brine on at least one surface thereof (outer surface of 30); a flow forming unit (20) providing a flow of the brine to the ice-making surface (outer surface of 30); and a sweeping unit (66) being displaced with respect to the ice-making surface (outer surface of 30) to separate ice generated on the ice-making surface from the ice-making surface (Column 2, lines 61-64).
Regarding Claim 2: Wilkerson teaches wherein the sweeping unit (66) is arranged in a driving unit (motor 80) rotating or rotatively reciprocating with respect to the ice-making surface (inner cylinder 30).
Regarding Claim 3: Wilkerson teaches wherein the ice production unit (Figures 1-4) further includes a holding unit (62, 64) holding at least the ice-making plate (40) and the driving unit (80) in one piece (see Figure 2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 4, 11-12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilkerson (4,538,428) in view of Goldstein (WO 8600692 A1).
Regarding Claim 4: Wilkerson fails to teach wherein at least part of the sweeping unit has water-repellent coating.
Goldstein teaches at least part of a sweeping unit (150) has water-repellent coating (pages 28-29).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein at least part of the sweeping unit has water-repellent coating to the structure of Wilkerson as taught by Goldstein in order to advantageously prevent ice build up (see Goldstein, page 28).
Regarding Claim 11: Wilkerson teaches an ice-making device (see Figures 1-4) comprising: an ice slurry production tank (10) storing brine; and an ice production unit (28) arranged inside the ice slurry production tank (10), the ice production unit (28) being able to contact the brine (sea water, Column 3, line 68), wherein the ice production unit (28) includes: an ice-making plate (30) having an ice-making surface (outer surface of 30); and a sweeping unit (66) being displaced with respect to the ice-making surface (see Figures 2-4) to separate ice generated on the ice-making surface from the ice-making surface (functional limitation).
Wilkerson fails to teach wherein at least part of the sweeping unit has water-repellent coating.
Goldstein teaches at least part of a sweeping unit (150) has water-repellent coating (pages 28-29).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein at least part of the sweeping unit has water-repellent coating to the structure of Wilkerson as taught by Goldstein in order to advantageously prevent ice build up (see Goldstein, page 28).
Regarding Claim 12: Wilkerson teaches wherein the ice-making plate (40) is supported by a support unit (62, 64) arranged in the ice slurry production tank (10), the support unit (62, 64) being detachably attached to the ice slurry production tank (10, see Figure 2, the bolts).
Regarding Claim 16: Wilkerson teaches an ice-making method using an ice-making device (see Figures 1-4) including an ice slurry production tank (10) storing brine (sea water, Column 3, line 68), and an ice production unit (28) arranged inside the ice slurry production tank (10, see Figure 2), the ice production unit (28) being able to contact the brine (sea water, Column 3, line 68), the ice production unit (28) including an ice-making plate (30) with an ice-making surface (outer surface of 30) and a sweeping unit (66) being displaced with respect to the ice-making surface (outer face of 30) to separate ice generated on the ice-making surface from the ice-making surface (see Figures 2-4), the ice-making method comprising: separating the ice from the ice-making surface (outer surface of 30) by displacing the sweeping unit (66).
Wilkerson fails to teach wherein at least part of the sweeping unit has water-repellent coating.
Goldstein teaches at least part of a sweeping unit (150) has water-repellent coating (pages 28-29).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein at least part of the sweeping unit has water-repellent coating to the structure of Wilkerson as taught by Goldstein in order to advantageously prevent ice build up (see Goldstein, page 28).
Claims 5-7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilkerson (4,538,428) in view of Aizawa et al. (JPH 07280401 A), hereafter referred to as “Aizawa.”
Regarding Claim 5: Wilkerson teaches an ice-making device (see Figures 1-4) comprising: an ice-making unit (28) contacting brine (10, sea water, Column 3, line 68); a first refrigerant path (via pipes 50) formed to pass through the ice-making unit (see Figure 2) and capable of causing a first refrigerant to flow (Column 2, lines 50-52).
Wilkerson fails to teach a second refrigerant path formed to pass through the ice-making unit and capable of causing a second refrigerant, which has an evaporation temperature lower than that of the first refrigerant, to flow, wherein the second refrigerant cools the ice-making unit cooled by the first refrigerant.
Aizawa teaches a second refrigerant path (page 5 of machine translation) formed to pass through an ice-making unit (10) and capable of causing a second refrigerant, which has an evaporation temperature lower than that of a first refrigerant (53, C), to flow, wherein the second refrigerant cools the ice-making unit cooled by the first refrigerant (53, C, page 5 of machine translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a second refrigerant path formed to pass through the ice-making unit and capable of causing a second refrigerant, which has an evaporation temperature lower than that of the first refrigerant, to flow, wherein the second refrigerant cools the ice-making unit cooled by the first refrigerant to the structure of Wilkerson as taught by Aizawa in order to advantageously provide enhanced heat transfer within the system (see Aizawa, abstract).
Regarding Claim 6: Wilkerson further teaches wherein the ice-making unit (28) is immersed in the brine (10, sea water, Column 3, line 68).
Regarding Claim 7: Wilkerson modified supra further teaches wherein a pressure of the second refrigerant (page 5 of machine translation of Aizawa) having been vaporized provides fluidity to the second refrigerant (functional limitation of Aizawa).
Regarding Claim 10: Wilkerson teaches an ice-making method performed using an ice-making device (see Figures 1-4) including an ice-making unit (28) contacting brine (10, sea water, Column 3, line 68), a first refrigerant path (via pipes 50) formed to pass through the ice-making unit (28) and capable of causing a first refrigerant to flow (Column 2, lines 50-52).
Wilkerson fails to teach a second refrigerant path formed to pass through the ice-making unit and capable of causing a second refrigerant, which has an evaporation temperature lower than an evaporation temperature of the first refrigerant, to flow, the ice-making method comprising: cooling the ice-making unit by the second refrigerant after cooling the ice-making unit by the first refrigerant.
Aizawa teaches a second refrigerant path (page 5 of machine translation) formed to pass through an ice-making unit (10) and capable of causing a second refrigerant, which has an evaporation temperature lower than that of a first refrigerant (53, C), to flow, the ice-making method comprising: cooling the ice-making unit (10) by the second refrigerant (page 5 of machine translation) after cooling the ice-making unit (10) by the first refrigerant (53, C, page 5 of machine translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a second refrigerant path formed to pass through the ice-making unit and capable of causing a second refrigerant, which has an evaporation temperature lower than that of the first refrigerant, to flow, wherein the second refrigerant cools the ice-making unit cooled by the first refrigerant to the structure of Wilkerson as taught by Aizawa in order to advantageously provide enhanced heat transfer within the system (see Aizawa, abstract).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilkerson (4,538,428) in view of Aizawa et al. (JPH 07280401 A), hereafter referred to as “Aizawa,” as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Goldstein (WO 8600692 A1).
Regarding Claim 8: Wilkerson teaches further comprising: a sweeping unit (66) being displaced with respect to an ice-making surface (outer surface of 30) of the ice-making unit (28) to separate ice generated on the ice-making surface from the ice-making surface (functional limitation).
Wilkerson modified supra fails to teach wherein at least part of the sweeping unit has water-repellent coating.
Goldstein teaches at least part of a sweeping unit (150) has water-repellent coating (pages 28-29).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein at least part of the sweeping unit has water-repellent coating to the structure of Wilkerson modified supra as taught by Goldstein in order to advantageously prevent ice build up (see Goldstein, page 28).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilkerson (4, 538,428) in view of Goldstein (WO 8600692 A1), as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Clark, III (US 2015/0083374 A1).
Regarding Claim 15: Wilkerson modified supra fails to teach wherein the ice slurry production tank includes a stirring device to stir ice slurry produced in the ice slurry production tank.
Clark teaches an ice slurry production tank (14, 18) includes a stirring device (16) to stir ice slurry produced in the ice slurry production tank (paragraph [0041]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided Wilkerson modified supra fails to teach wherein the ice slurry production tank includes a stirring device to stir ice slurry produced in the ice slurry production tank to the structure of Wilkerson modified supra as taught by Clark in order to advantageously prevent agglomeration (see Clark, paragraph [0041]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yamamoto et al. (US 2008/0276629 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIRSTIN U OSWALD whose telephone number is (571)270-3557. The examiner can normally be reached 10 a.m. - 6 p.m. M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Len Tran can be reached at 571-272-1184. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KIRSTIN U OSWALD/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/LEN TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763