DETAILED ACITON
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/Restriction
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
Claim 1, drawn to an insert adopted to be used in a freezing/mixing chamber, classified in F25C 1/04.
Claims 2-22, a tray adopted to receive a liquid to be received in a freezing/mixing chamber, classified in F25C 1/24.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as combination and subcombination. Inventions in this relationship are distinct if it can be shown that (1) the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed for patentability, and (2) that the subcombination has utility by itself or in other combinations (MPEP § 806.05(c)). In the instant case, the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed because the insert of the invention II does not require a surface apportioned to trap a small volume of liquid. The subcombination has separate utility such as a beverage coaster.
The examiner has required restriction between combination and subcombination inventions. Where applicant elects a subcombination, and claims thereto are subsequently found allowable, any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable subcombination will be examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. See MPEP § 821.04(a). Applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or
electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Paul Schaafsma, Attorney of Record, on October 22nd, 2025 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Invention II, claims 2-22. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claim 1 is withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
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 tabs extending outward from the insert of claim 10 must be shown or the feature canceled from the claims. 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.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 4-8, 14, 16-17, and 22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4, line 1: “a single insert for each cavity” should read “wherein the insert is a single insert for each freezing cavity of the at least one freezing cavity”
Claim 5, line 1: “a single insert for multiple cavities” should read “wherein the insert is a single insert for multiple freezing cavities of the at least one freezing cavity”
Claim 6, line 1: “a single insert for creating multiple cavities” should read “wherein the insert is a single insert creating multiple freezing cavities of the at least one freezing cavity”
Claim 7, line 1: “a single insert for creating multiple cavities” should read “wherein the insert is a single insert creating multiple freezing cavities of the at least one freezing cavity”
Claim 8, line 1: “multiple cavities” should read “multiple freezing cavities of the at least one freezing cavity”
Claim 14, lines 1-2: “a plurality of freezing cavities” should read “a plurality of the at least one freezing cavity”
Claim 16, line 1: “wherein the freezing cavity” should read “wherein the at least one freezing cavity”
Claim 16, line 1: “geometry defining surfaces” should read “the geometry defining surfaces”
Claim 16, line 2: “geometry of ice” should read “the geometry of the ice”
Claim 16, line 4: “a plurality of freezing cavities having cube shapes” should read “a plurality of the at least one freezing cavity having cube shapes”
Claim 16, lines 4-5: “a plurality of freezing cavity having cylindrical shapes” should read “a plurality of the at least one freezing cavity having cylindrical shapes”
Claim 16, line 5: “a plurality of freezing cavities having rectangular shapes” should read “a plurality of the at least one freezing cavity having rectangular shapes”
Claim 16, lines 5-6: “a plurality of freezing cavities having shapes combined thereof” should read “a plurality of the at least one freezing cavity having shapes combined thereof”
Claim 17, lines 1-2: “multiple cavities” should read “multiple freezing cavities of the at least one freezing cavity”
Claim 22, line 1: “the surfaces” should read “the geometry defining surfaces”
Appropriate correction is required.
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:
Claim 2, lines 14-15, “mixing mechanism” draws corresponding structure to the following recitations of the disclosure: “An example of a mixing mechanism 31 can be an axial impeller 32 mixer connected to a DC motor 34 (Pg. 20, paragraph 123)”, “Figure 15B shows an embodiment with the flow resulting from three bunched positive displacement pump nozzles 95 as the mixing mechanism 31 with the middle pump nozzle 95 exhibiting an upward displacement and the outer pump nozzles 95 exhibiting a downward displacement (flow can be vice versa) (Pg. 38, paragraph 173)”, or equivalents.
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 § 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 2-22 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 2 recites the limitation "the edges of the insert" in lines 12-13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner recommends changing “the edges of the inset” in lines 12-13 of claim 2 to “edges of the insert”.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the edge of the insert" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner recommends changing “the edge of the insert" in line 1 in line 1 of claim 3 to “an edge of the edges of the insert”.
Claim 8, lines 1-2 recite, “further comprising multiple cavities and different number of edges or aspect ratios” which is unclear to the Examiner as to what edges and aspect ratios are being referred to. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to simply require multiple freezing cavities and edges of the multiple freezing cavities.
The term “slight” in claim 22 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “slight” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The degree to which the surfaces of the freezing cavity are drafted is rendered unclear by the use of the term “slight” for purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret any angle of the surfaces to constitute a slight draft.
Claims 3-22 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 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 2-4, 9, 14-18, and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moczygemba et al. (US Patent No. 11,747,067), hereinafter Moczygemba in view of Xue et al. (CN 111854251), hereinafter Xue.
Regarding claim 2, Moczygemba discloses a tray adopted to receive a liquid to be received in a freezing/mixing chamber of an ice machine (Fig. 1A, frozen substance maker 100, mold base 116, mold top 118; Col. 2, lines 60-62, In some embodiments, the frozen substance maker 100 may include one or more reservoirs for containing a supply of water for the frozen substance maker 100), the tray comprising:
a lower wall of the tray defining an energy transfer surface adapted to be in thermal contact with a heat exchanger of the ice machine, the heat exchanger removing energy from the liquid, cooling the liquid to freezing temperature, then overcoming the heat of fusion to form ice at a liquid/ice boundary (Fig. 1A, mold base 116, cold plate 112; Col. 3, lines 40-41, Cooling mode may be associated with forming the clear ice; Col. 4, lines 4-11 and 33-37, The frozen substance maker 100 may include a cold plate 112 in thermal communication with the first surface 128 of the TEC 126. During cooling mode, heat may be transferred from the cold plate 112 to the heat sink 106 via the first surface 128 and the second surface 130. In some configurations, a thermally conductive material such as thermally conductive paste may be located between the cold plate 112 and the first surface 128… The mold base 116 may be positioned on the cold plate 112. The mold base 116 and the cold plate 112 may be shaped and positioned such that a seed crystal chamber 142 (shown in FIG. 1D) is defined between the cold plate 112 and the mold base 116);
at least one freezing cavity having geometry defining surfaces extending upwardly from the energy transfer surface to form the geometry of the ice, the freezing cavity defined above the energy transfer surface (Fig. 1D, mold chamber 137; Further, Fig. 1D of Moczygemba depicts the mold chamber 137 to have geometry defining surfaces extending (the inner walls of mold base 116 and mold top 118) upwardly from the energy transfer surface (the base of mold base 116) to form the geometry of the ice, the mold chamber 137 defined above the energy transfer surface (the base of mold base 116));
an egress area contained above the freezing cavity, the egress area receiving a mixing mechanism to contact with the liquid in the egress area to create a velocity profile at the liquid/ice boundary layer, thereby creating a directional freezing process starting from the energy transfer surface of the tray in thermal contact with the heat exchanger and growing through the freezing cavity up to the egress area, and which deters impurities from getting entrapped in the ice (Fig. 1D, overflow reservoir 146, motor 134, agitator 134; Col. 7-8, lines 45-67 and 1-3, The cap 120 may include a motor 132 that drives the agitator 134. In some embodiments, the agitator 134 may include a push-pull impeller. The motor 132 and agitator 134 may facilitate water circulation that effectively removes oxygen buildup from an ice/water interface as freezing occurs. Agitation may significantly increase the rate of clear ice production, as agitation may encourage removal of oxygen from the water at a relatively high rate, particularly relative to the rate at which oxygen may diffuse through the water without agitation. For instance, achieving comparably clear ice without agitation may be done over a relatively longer period of time such that the rate of ice formation may not outstrip the rate at which the oxygen diffuses through natural forces. The agitator 134 may circulate water within the mold chamber 137 by way of the fluid communication facilitated by the opening 147. For example, the motor 132 and the agitator 134 may discourage oxygen entrapment that may occur in the absence of agitation. Oxygen entrapment may cause cloudy funnels to occur within the ice where oxygen was not effectively flushed from the water. In some configurations, a push/pull impeller may generate an efficient water circulation profile for discouraging oxygen buildup at the ice/water interface. In some embodiments, the agitator 134 may be rotated at 800-1000 RPM to encourage circulation rates that effectively discourage oxygen buildup at the ice/water interface; Col. 8-9, lines 53-67 and 1-15, In response to the overflow reservoir sensor 150 determining that the water has reached the overflow reservoir sensor 150, the pump 104 may cease pumping water from the supply reservoir 102 to the seed crystal chamber 142, the mold chamber 137, and the overflow reservoir 146. The TEC 126 may further operate in cooling mode to transfer heat from the cold plate 112 to the heat sink 106 to begin ice making. The first sequence in the ice making process is the formation of the seed crystal in the seed crystal chamber 142. During the formation of the seed crystal, the agitator 134 may not be activated in order to allow a thermal gradient to develop in the water in the assembly, with the coldest point in contact with the cold plate 112 and the warmest point at the top of the overflow reservoir 146. This thermal gradient may prevent subcooling and flash freezing of the water in the mold chamber 137 and overflow reservoir 146. The fan 110 may begin operation to encourage cooling of the heat sink 106 while the TEC 126 is in cooling mode. In response to the seed crystal chamber sensor 149 determining that the water in the seed crystal chamber 142 has formed ice, the motor 132 may begin operation to cause the agitator 134 to circulate the water within the mold chamber 137. In some embodiments, operation of the motor 132 may be delayed to encourage the ice seed crystal in the seed crystal chamber 142 to form to a sufficient degree such that the circulation of the water does not disturb the ice seed crystal in the seed crystal chamber 142. By way of example, the motor 132 may begin operation one minute following the seed crystal chamber sensor 149 determining that the water in the seed crystal chamber 142 has formed ice);
whereby the velocity profile at liquid/ice boundary encourages impurities to be washed away and concentrate in a pool ultimately in the egress area during the freezing process (Col. 7-8, lines 45-67 and 1-3, The cap 120 may include a motor 132 that drives the agitator 134. In some embodiments, the agitator 134 may include a push-pull impeller. The motor 132 and agitator 134 may facilitate water circulation that effectively removes oxygen buildup from an ice/water interface as freezing occurs. Agitation may significantly increase the rate of clear ice production, as agitation may encourage removal of oxygen from the water at a relatively high rate, particularly relative to the rate at which oxygen may diffuse through the water without agitation. For instance, achieving comparably clear ice without agitation may be done over a relatively longer period of time such that the rate of ice formation may not outstrip the rate at which the oxygen diffuses through natural forces. The agitator 134 may circulate water within the mold chamber 137 by way of the fluid communication facilitated by the opening 147. For example, the motor 132 and the agitator 134 may discourage oxygen entrapment that may occur in the absence of agitation. Oxygen entrapment may cause cloudy funnels to occur within the ice where oxygen was not effectively flushed from the water. In some configurations, a push/pull impeller may generate an efficient water circulation profile for discouraging oxygen buildup at the ice/water interface. In some embodiments, the agitator 134 may be rotated at 800-1000 RPM to encourage circulation rates that effectively discourage oxygen buildup at the ice/water interface).
However, Moczygemba does not disclose an insert adapted to reside in the freezing cavity at the energy transfer surface, the insert trapping a small volume of liquid between the insert and the energy transfer surface to hinder movement of liquid between the insert and the energy transfer surface and around the edges of the insert, the insert defining a nucleation/seed site.
Xue teaches an insert adapted to reside in the freezing cavity at the energy transfer surface, the insert trapping a small volume of liquid between the insert and the energy transfer surface to hinder movement of liquid between the insert and the energy transfer surface and around the edges of the insert, the insert defining a nucleation/seed site (Fig. 4, ice making box 1, containing cavity 10, box main body 11, top plate 21; Pg. 5, paragraph 30-31, In the present invention, the top plate 210 has a back surface close to one side of the bottom wall of the box body 11 and a top surface far away from one side of the bottom wall of the box body 11. As a preferred embodiment of the present invention, referring to FIG. 4. As shown in FIG. 8, the top plate 21 is formed with a back cavity 210, the top plate 21 is in the initial state, the top plate 21 and the containing cavity 10 between the inner wall is formed with a gap (not shown in the figure), top plate 21 top space is connected to the cavity 210 by the gap. based on the structure, in the ice making process, when the liquid water in the containing cavity 10 is completely solidified, the air released in the liquid water will enter into the back cavity 210 through the gap before the liquid water is completely solidified. Thus, even if the liquid water in the containing cavity 10 is completely solidified into ice, the top of the top plate 21 is pushed by the ice pushing mechanism of the ice also can keep the whole transparent state. In the present invention, the width dimension of the gap between the periphery of the top tray 21 and the inner wall of the holding cavity 10 is preferably not greater than 3mm, for example, it may be set to be 1.5mm. Because the gap width size is small, when the liquid water in the containing cavity 10 is solidified as solid ice, the ice in the gap has a thin thickness, so when using the ice pushing mechanism 2 to push the ice, the ice in the gap is easy to break, so that the top plate 21 top part of the ice smoothly separated from the containing cavity 10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tray of Moczygemba of claim 2 to include an insert adapted to reside in the freezing cavity at the energy transfer surface, the insert trapping a small volume of liquid between the insert and the energy transfer surface to hinder movement of liquid between the insert and the energy transfer surface and around the edges of the insert, the insert defining a nucleation/seed site as taught by Xue. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so the prepared ice block only contains bubbles in the small area range of the bottom, the whole transparency of the ice block compared with the transparency of the ice block prepared by the traditional ice making grid has a greater improvement (Xue, Pg. 5, paragraph 29).
Regarding claim 3, Moczygemba as modified disclose the tray of claim 2 (see the combination of
references used in the rejection of claim 2 above) further wherein the nucleation/seed site is defined at the edge of the insert (Moczygemba; Col. 8-9, lines 53-67 and 1-15, In response to the overflow reservoir sensor 150 determining that the water has reached the overflow reservoir sensor 150, the pump 104 may cease pumping water from the supply reservoir 102 to the seed crystal chamber 142, the mold chamber 137, and the overflow reservoir 146. The TEC 126 may further operate in cooling mode to transfer heat from the cold plate 112 to the heat sink 106 to begin ice making. The first sequence in the ice making process is the formation of the seed crystal in the seed crystal chamber 142. During the formation of the seed crystal, the agitator 134 may not be activated in order to allow a thermal gradient to develop in the water in the assembly, with the coldest point in contact with the cold plate 112 and the warmest point at the top of the overflow reservoir 146. This thermal gradient may prevent subcooling and flash freezing of the water in the mold chamber 137 and overflow reservoir 146. The fan 110 may begin operation to encourage cooling of the heat sink 106 while the TEC 126 is in cooling mode. In response to the seed crystal chamber sensor 149 determining that the water in the seed crystal chamber 142 has formed ice, the motor 132 may begin operation to cause the agitator 134 to circulate the water within the mold chamber 137. In some embodiments, operation of the motor 132 may be delayed to encourage the ice seed crystal in the seed crystal chamber 142 to form to a sufficient degree such that the circulation of the water does not disturb the ice seed crystal in the seed crystal chamber 142. By way of example, the motor 132 may begin operation one minute following the seed crystal chamber sensor 149 determining that the water in the seed crystal chamber 142 has formed ice; Further, Moczygemba discloses the nucleation/seed site to begin at the bottom of the mold chamber 137 and will maintain the same configuration when modified as described herein, placing the nucleation/seed site at the edge of the top plate 21). Further, the limitations of claim 3 are the result of the modification of references used in the rejection of claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 4, Moczygemba as modified disclose the tray of claim 2 (see the combination of
references used in the rejection of claim 2 above) further comprising a single insert for each cavity (Fig. 4 of Xue depicts a single top plate 21 to be used in the containing cavity 10 and will maintain the same configuration when modified as described herein). Further, the limitations of claim 4 are the result of the modification of references used in the rejection of claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 9, Moczygemba as modified disclose the tray of claim 2 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 2 above) further wherein the insert includes a pedestal with an outwardly projecting lip defining a stagnate liquid area (See annotated Fig. 5 of Xue below, top plate 21 includes a pedestal with an outwardly projecting lip A defining a stagnate liquid area B). Further, the limitations of claim 9 are the result of the modification of references used in the rejection of claim 2 above.
PNG
media_image1.png
418
321
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 5 of Xue
Regarding claim 14, Moczygemba as modified disclose the tray of claim 2 (see the combination
of references used in the rejection of claim 2 above) further wherein the egress area is formed above a plurality of freezing cavities (Moczygemba, Col. 10, lines 27-30, In some embodiments, the frozen substance maker 100 may facilitate the formation of multiple units of clear ice, for instance through multiple mold chambers generally corresponding to the mold chamber 137; Further, Fig. 1D of Moczygemba depicts the overflow reservoir 146 to be formed above the mold chamber 137 and would maintain the same configuration if there were a plurality of mold chambers 137 as disclosed by Moczygemba).
Regarding claim 15, Moczygemba as modified disclose the tray of claim 2 (see the combination
of references used in the rejection of claim 2 above) further wherein the energy transfer surface is selected from the group consisting of a low thermal conductivity material, a high conductivity material, and combinations thereof (Moczygemba, Col. 4, lines 18-22, The frozen substance maker 100 may further include a mold base 116 and a mold top 118. In some embodiments, the mold base 116 may have relatively high thermal conductivity. For instance, in some configurations, the mold base 116 may include anodized aluminum).
Regarding claim 16, Moczygemba as modified disclose the tray of claim 2 (see the combination
of references used in the rejection of claim 2 above) further wherein the freezing cavity and geometry defining surfaces form geometry of ice selected from a group consisting of a single freezing cavity having a cube shape, a single freezing cavity having a cylindrical shape, a single freezing cavity having a rectangular shape, a plurality of freezing cavities having cube shapes, a plurality of freezing cavities having cylindrical shapes, a plurality of freezing cavities having rectangular shapes, and a plurality of freezing cavities having shapes combined thereof (Moczygemba, Col. 6, lines 6-10, The mold chamber 137 is shown as having a spherical shape. However, a variety of other shapes are possible. For instance, in some configurations the mold chamber 137 may have a cuboid shape, a cylindrical shape, a pyramidal shape, or the like; Col. 10, lines 27-30, In some embodiments, the frozen substance maker 100 may facilitate the formation of multiple units of clear ice, for instance through multiple mold chambers generally corresponding to the mold chamber 137).
Regarding claim 17, Moczygemba as modified disclose the tray of claim 2 (see the combination
of references used in the rejection of claim 2 above) further wherein the geometry defining surfaces are shared by multiple freezing cavities (Moczygemba, Col. 10, lines 27-30, In some embodiments, the frozen substance maker 100 may facilitate the formation of multiple units of clear ice, for instance through multiple mold chambers generally corresponding to the mold chamber 137; Further, the walls of mold base 116 and mold top 118 would be shared when multiple mold chambers 137 are included).
Regarding claim 18, Moczygemba as modified disclose the tray of claim 2 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 2 above) further wherein the geometry defining surfaces and the energy transferring surface coincide (Fig. 1D of Moczygemba depicts the inner walls of mold base 116 and mold top 118 to coincide with the base of mold base 116 which corresponds to the energy transferring surface as claimed).
Regarding claim 20, Moczygemba as modified disclose the tray of claim 2 (see the combination
of references used in the rejection of claim 2 above) further wherein the egress area width is expanded relative to the freezing cavity width (See annotated Fig. 1D of Moczygemba depicts the overflow reservoir 146 to be expanded relative to the mold chamber 137).
PNG
media_image2.png
878
682
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1D of Moczygemba
Regarding claim 21, Moczygemba as modified disclose the tray of claim 2 (see the combination
of references used in the rejection of claim 2 above).
However, Moczygemba as modified does not disclose further wherein the tray further defines a notch defined in the freezing cavities at the bottom to aid in ice removal.
Xue teaches further wherein the tray further defines a notch defined in the freezing cavities at the bottom to aid in ice removal (Fig. 7, through hole 110, pushing mechanism 2; Pg. 4, paragraph 26, Referring to FIG. 1, FIG. 3 and FIG. 7, the transparent ice preparation device of the present invention comprises an ice making box 1 with an opening at the top and an ice pushing mechanism 2 for pushing ice in the ice making box 1… the bottom of the ice making box 1 is formed with a through hole 110 for the push rod 22 to pass through; Pg. 5, paragraph 33, Referring to FIG. 2, shown in FIG. 7, the ice pushing mechanism 2 of the present invention further has a rod-shaped handle 23 rotatably set with the push rod 22 as a rotating shaft, the handle 23 is vertically set relative to the push rod 22 and the middle part is connected to one end of the push rod 22 away from the top plate 21).
Moczygemba as modified as modified fails to teach wherein the tray further defines a notch
defined in the freezing cavities at the bottom to aid in ice removal, however Xue teaches that it is a known method in the art of ice trays to include wherein the tray further defines a notch defined in the freezing cavities at the bottom to aid in ice removal. This is strong evidence that modifying Moczygemba as modified as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. removing formed ice from the ice tray). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Moczygemba as modified by Xue and arrive at the claimed invention since all claimed elements were known in the art and one having ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of removing formed ice from the ice tray.
Regarding claim 22, Moczygemba as modified disclose the tray of claim 2 (see the combination
of references used in the rejection of claim 2 above) further wherein the surfaces of the freezing cavity provide a slight draft (Fig. 1D of Moczygemba depicts the inner walls of mold base 116 and mold top 118 of the mold chamber 137 to have a slight draft; As best understood, see 112(b) rejections above).
Claims 5-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moczygemba as modified by Xue as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Ji et al. (WO 2016013730), hereinafter Ji.
Regarding claim 5, Moczygemba as modified disclose the tray of claim 2 (see the combination
of references used in the rejection of claim 2 above).
However, Moczygemba as modified does not disclose further comprising a single insert for multiple cavities.
Ji teaches a single insert for multiple cavities (Fig. 3b of Ji depicts a single second case 5b of the tray 5 to create multiple cavities).
Moczygemba as modified fails to teach a single insert for multiple cavities, however Ji teaches that it is a known method in the art of ice trays to include a single insert for multiple cavities. This is strong evidence that modifying Moczygemba as modified as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. reducing the number of individual components required for an ice tray with multiple cavities). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Moczygemba as modified by Ji and arrive at the claimed invention since all claimed elements were known in the art and one having ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of reducing the number of individual components required for an ice tray with multiple cavities.
Regarding claim 6, Moczygemba as modified disclose the tray of claim 2 (see the combination
of references used in the rejection of claim 2 above).
However, Moczygemba as modified does not disclose further comprising a single insert creating multiple cavities, void space in cross beam.
Ji teaches further comprising a single insert creating multiple cavities, void space in cross beam (Fig. 3b of Ji depicts a single second case 5b of the tray 5 to create multiple cavities with void space in cross beam; Pg. 7, paragraph 58, The hollow space of the partition 9 can communicate with the outside of the tray 5 through the cutout 18 formed in the second case 5b, which allows cold air to pass through the tray 5 through the first case 5a. Better delivery to the water contained in the can shorten the freezing time).
Moczygemba as modified fails to teach a single insert creating multiple cavities, void space in cross beam, however Ji teaches that it is a known method in the art of ice trays to include a single insert creating multiple cavities, void space in cross beam. This is strong evidence that modifying Moczygemba as modified as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. reducing the number of individual components required for an ice tray with multiple cavities). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Moczygemba as modified by Ji and arrive at the claimed invention since all claimed elements were known in the art and one having ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of reducing the number of individual components required for an ice tray with multiple cavities.
Regarding claim 7, Moczygemba as modified disclose the tray of claim 2 (see the combination
of references used in the rejection of claim 2 above).
However, Moczygemba as modified does not disclose further comprising a single insert creating multiple cavities, no void space in cross beam.
Ji teaches further comprising a single insert creating multiple cavities, no void space in cross beam (Fig. 4b of Ji depicts a single second case 5b of the tray 5b to create multiple cavities with no void space in cross beam).
Moczygemba as modified fails to teach a single insert creating multiple cavities, no void space in cross beam, however Ji teaches that it is a known method in the art of ice trays to include a single insert creating multiple cavities, no void space in cross beam. This is strong evidence that modifying Moczygemba as modified as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. reducing the number of individual components required for an ice tray with multiple cavities). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Moczygemba as modified by Ji and arrive at the claimed invention since all claimed elements were known in the art and one having ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of reducing the number of individual components required for an ice tray with multiple cavities.
Regarding claim 8, Moczygemba as modified disclose the tray of claim 2 (see the combination
of references used in the rejection of claim 2 above).
However, Moczygemba as modified does not disclose further comprising multiple cavities and different number of edges or aspect ratios.
Ji teaches further comprising further comprising multiple cavities and different number of edges or aspect ratios (Fig. 3b of Ji depicts a single second case 5b of the tray 5 to create multiple cavities and different number of edges or aspect ratios; As best understood, see 122(b) rejections above).
Moczygemba as modified fails to teach multiple cavities and different number of edges or aspect ratios, however Ji teaches that it is a known method in the art of ice trays to include multiple cavities and different number of edges or aspect ratios. This is strong evidence that modifying Moczygemba as modified as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. reducing the number of individual components required for an ice tray with multiple cavities). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Moczygemba as modified by Ji and arrive at the claimed invention since all claimed elements were known in the art and one having ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of reducing the number of individual components required for an ice tray with multiple cavities.
Regarding claim 8, Moczygemba as modified disclose the tray of claim 2 (see the combination
of references used in the rejection of claim 2 above).
However, Moczygemba as modified does not disclose further wherein the insert includes tabs extending outward from the insert.
Ji teaches further comprising further wherein the insert includes tabs extending outward from the insert (Fig. 3b, second case 5b, protrusions 16a; Pg. 8, paragraph 68 Grooves 17a are formed on the outer surface of the first case 5a, for example, the outer surface of the vertical wall formed at both ends of the first case 5a, and the corresponding protrusion 16a of the second case 5b.) Is inserted here. Alternatively, the formation of the grooves 17a and the projections 16a may be reversed, and the grooves 17a and the projections 16a may be formed in both cases 5a and 5b. By such a configuration, the coupling force between the first case 5a and the second case 5b is improved, and the second case 5b is prevented from being separated from the second case).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the insert of the tray of Moczygemba as modified to include tabs extending outward from the insert as taught by Ji. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to secure the insert to the tray (Ji, Pg. 8, paragraph 68).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moczygemba as modified by Xue as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Baumbach et al. (US Patent No. 9,863,683), hereinafter Baumbach.
Regarding claim 11, Moczygemba as modified disclose the tray of claim 2 (see the combination
of references used in the rejection of claim 2 above).
However, Moczygemba as modified does not disclose further wherein the insert includes low flow, high energy transfer sections.
Baumbach teaches further wherein the insert includes low flow, high energy transfer sections (Fig. 1, ice cube tray assembly 10, upper chamber 16; Fig. 12, openings 142; Further, per the present disclosure, low flow, high energy transfer sections are said to include small holes “To address this last potential disadvantage, additional low flow, high energy transfer sections may need to be added to this insert. This could include small holes in the insert or multi-material insert with varying thermal conductivity (Pg. 48, paragraph 209)”).
Moczygemba as modified fails to teach wherein the insert includes low flow, high energy transfer sections, however Baumbach teaches that it is a known method in the art of ice trays to include wherein the insert includes low flow, high energy transfer sections. This is strong evidence that modifying Moczygemba as modified as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. obtaining desired heat transfer characteristics in the insert to improve overall system efficiencies). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Moczygemba as modified by Baumbach and arrive at the claimed invention since all claimed elements were known in the art and one having ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of obtaining desired heat transfer characteristics in the insert to improve overall system efficiencies.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moczygemba as modified by Xue as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Roethel (US Patent No. 2,614,399), hereinafter Roethel.
Regarding claim 12, Moczygemba as modified disclose the tray of claim 2 (see the combination
of references used in the rejection of claim 2 above).
However, Moczygemba as modified does not disclose further wherein the insert is comprised of PolyEthylene Terephthalate (PET).
Roethel teaches wherein the insert is comprised of PolyEthylene (Fig. 1, tray frame 9, molds 19; Col. 3, lines 35-40, In the present instance each mold or receptacle 19 is formed from plastic material of suitable gage or thickness, and in preferred practice the receptacles are molded under heat and pressure from polyethylene plastic material). Further, Moczygemba as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the insert is comprised of PolyEthylene Terephthalate (PET). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to comprise the insert of PolyEthylene Terephthalate (PET) since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use or purpose MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 13, Moczygemba as modified disclose the tray of claim 2 (see the combination
of references used in the rejection of claim 2 above).
However, Moczygemba as modified does not disclose further wherein the insert has a thickness of about 0.1 mm to about 2 mm.
Roethel teaches the insert to have a wall thickness of between thirty thousandths of an inch (0.762 mm) to thirty-five thousandths of an inch (0.889 mm) (Fig. 1, tray frame 9, molds 19; Col. 3, lines 35-40, In the present instance each mold or receptacle 19 is formed from plastic material of suitable gage or thickness, and in preferred practice the receptacles are molded under heat and pressure from polyethylene plastic material and a wall thickness of approximately thirty thousandths of an inch and preferably not exceeding thirty-five thousandths of an inch).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the thickness of the insert of the tray of Moczygemba as modified to be about 0.1 mm to about 2 mm as taught by Roethel. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to provide an insert with desired heat transfer characteristics in the insert to improve overall system efficiencies. Further, it has been held a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%). MPEP § 2144.05-I.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moczygemba as modified by Xue as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Harris, Sr. (US Patent No. 3,020,730), hereinafter Harris.
Regarding claim 19, Moczygemba as modified disclose the tray of claim 2 (see the combination
of references used in the rejection of claim 2 above).
However, Moczygemba as modified does not disclose further comprising a fill line in the egress area.
Harris teaches further comprising a fill line in the egress area (Fig. 5, trap 70b, water line 127; Col. 5, lines 25-32, The molds and basin portion are then filled with water. Trap 70b is included to prevent water from flowing down through the various sections 36 and into the compressor 60 in the event the compressor is off and water is present within the interiors of the molds. Note that trap section 70b is at a higher elevation than the water line in the basin 14 determined by overflow line 126, such water line being indicated in FIG. 5 at 127).
Moczygemba as modified fails to teach a fill line in the egress area, however Harris teaches that it is a known method in the art of ice trays to include a fill line in the egress area. This is strong evidence that modifying Moczygemba as modified as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. reducing the amount of water wasted during ice production). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Moczygemba as modified by Harris and arrive at the claimed invention since all claimed elements were known in the art and one having ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of reducing the amount of water wasted during ice production.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Xue et al. (CN 111854250) discloses a similar insert for an ice tray.
Hays et al. (US 20230366602) discloses a similar insert for an ice tray.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVON T MOORE whose telephone number is 571-272-6555. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:30-5.
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, Frantz Jules can be reached at 571-272-6681. 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.
/DEVON MOORE/Examiner, Art Unit 3763 October 23rd, 2025
/FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights