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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of group I in the reply filed on 06/02/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no appreciable search burden. This is not found persuasive because there is a significant difference in the required structures between groups I and II. Group I is limited to the structures comprising the “kitchen appliance” while group II as a method involves the operation of the kitchen appliance with external appliances such as a “refrigerator” and “external communication system.” Within the context of the product claim these external devices are merely an intended use of the kitchen appliances communication software/hardware whereas a method of operation will positively require these elements.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 10 is 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 10 is limited in the preamble to a kitchen appliance. The body of the claim states that the kitchen appliance now includes an “external communication system” but this “external communication system” is also in communication with the “kitchen appliance” (of which it is now a part of according to the claim). As such it is unclear whether the “external communication system” is now part of the “kitchen appliance” or a separately recited structure.
Examiner’s Note
The specification/drawings/claims are consistent in separately referring to the kitchen/refrigerator/external appliances and systems. Thus, the only reasonable interpretation is that the systems are separate. It does appear however that the claims may have desired inclusion of all of the structures in a positive manner. The examiner suggests, if this is the case, renaming the “kitchen appliance” in the preamble as a “system” which can then include the kitchen/refrigerator/external devices.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hellmers (US 2025/0386967).
Regarding claim 1
A kitchen appliance commissioned on a same user account with a refrigerator appliance comprising a water dispensing system, the kitchen appliance comprising: a removable water container (20) defining a maximum fluid level (top of the container); a presence detector for the water container (¶ [0043] as part of the functions of the “controller”); a fluid level sensor (110) configured to detect a fluid level in the water container (¶ [0036]) ; and an appliance controller (¶ [0036] and [0043-0044]) in operative communication with the presence detector and the fluid level sensor(¶ [0036] and [0043-0044]), wherein the appliance controller is configured to: monitor a fluid level in the water container using the fluid level sensor (¶ [0036] and [0043-0044]);detect removal of the water container using the presence detector (¶ [0036] and [0043-0044]);determine a refill volume to return the fluid level in the water container to a prescribed fluid level(¶ [ [0044] “percentage of the container that is filled”); and communicate the refill volume to a user through a separate mobile device (¶ [0044] “can alert the user” and that the display can be through a “mobile device”).
Hellmers does not specifically state that the refill volume is communicated to “the water dispensing system of the refrigerator appliance.” However, it is clear that the kitchen appliance and the “refrigerator appliance” are separate structures in the claim. As such it appears the connection to the refrigerator is an intended use and that the “refilling” is entirely performed by the structure outside of the scope of the claim. In view of these points it appears Hellmers anticipates the claims in as much as it kitchen appliance of Hellmers sends a signal to an internal device (what is done by the external device being outside of the scope of the “kitchen appliance”).
Regarding claim 2
Wherein the appliance is controller is further configured to communicate a low water level to an external device when the fluid sensor senses a fluid level below a prescribed minimum (¶ [0036] and [0043-0044] “refill” command and “below a predetermined minimum level”)
Regarding claim 3
wherein the appliance controller is further configured to: communicate the removal of the water container to an external device (¶ [0043]); and request permission to communicate refill volume to the refrigerator, wherein permission includes user input on the external device (this is a user interaction with a device outside of the scope of the “kitchen appliance” and thus is considered a statement of intended use for the electronic signals which occurs with the user external device and refrigerator).
Regarding claim 4
wherein user input includes identification of the refrigerator and confirmation of refill volume (this is entirely input into an external device which is not within the scope of the “kitchen appliance” and thus is intended use).
Regarding claim 5
wherein the confirmed refill volume returns the fluid level in the water container to a level less than maximum fluid level. (this is an action entirely performed by the refrigerator and not within the scope of the “kitchen appliance” beyond intended use).
Regarding claim 6
wherein the confirmed refill volume is determined by the appliance controller from a predetermined fluid level and the monitored fluid level at a time the water container was detected to be removed from the kitchen appliance (¶ [0036] and [0043-0044]; the device is capable of determining a refill volume, a % fill can be reasonably considered a refill volume, and it can determine removal thus it is capable of performing this use case; note the controller has not specifically been “configured to” perform this function and thus this is an intended use).
Regarding claim 7
wherein user input on the external device includes selection of the refill volume. (this is an action entirely performed by the refrigerator and user and thus not within the scope of the “kitchen appliance” beyond intended use).
Regarding claim 8
wherein identification of the refrigerator includes selection of one refrigerator from a plurality of refrigerators commissioned on the same account. (the identification is “user input” as discussed in claim 4 and thus is intended use).
Regarding claim 9
wherein the appliance controller is further configured to place the water dispensing system in a refill mode to dispense the refill volume upon activation of the water dispensing system within a prescribed time period. (It is noted that since the refill is performed by the “refrigerator” that the refill signal of the prior art is sufficient to meet this limitation, what is done with the signal beyond the device is merely intended use).
Regarding claim 10
further comprising an external communication system in operative communication with the kitchen appliance and the refrigerator appliance. (The external communication system is clearly structured as a device beyond the scope of the “kitchen appliance” in this claim and thus is intended use).
Regarding claim 11
wherein the appliance controller is further configured to communicate the refill volume to the refrigerator appliance through the external communication system (The prior art sends the signal to an external “mobile device” what is then done with communication between the external system and the refrigerator is outside of the scope of the “kitchen appliance”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WOODY A LEE JR whose telephone number is (571)272-1051. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 0800-1630.
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, Edward "Ned" Landrum can be reached at 571-272-5567. 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.
/WOODY A LEE JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights