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 1-19 are pending. Claims 18-19 are new. Claims 1-3, 10, 12, and 15-16 are amended. By virtue of dependency, all dependent claims are also amended in scope.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/06/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The amendments made to the apparatus claims 1-9 and 18 are not material to the art rejections as they are method step claim limitations as admitted by the applicant on the record (see remarks dated 11/06/2025, pages 7-8). Therefore, since the claims are indefinite and unclear, and the wherein clauses are optional/contingent in the apparatus claims, the arguments are moot.
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 1-9 and 18 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.
The claims have indefinite and unclear for the following reasons:
Per MPEP 2173.05(p)II “A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite.” In the instant application, the claims are apparatus claims with various method steps claimed (i.e., the holding time/mixing time in claims 1-3 in the wherein clauses).
Claims 1-3 have “wherein clauses” which are contingent/optional claim language for method steps that appear to need to be programmed into a controller or some type of automated element to control the holding time, the mixing time, and the freezing time in the pending apparatus claims. The originally filed specification discloses a controller. Absent definitive structure and positive limitation for specific step programmed to the definitive structure, the claims are indefinite. For purposes of examination, the wherein clauses given broadest reasonable interpretation and are contingent/optional. See MPEP 2111.04.
Applicant, during course of prosecution, has amended the claims to remove structure (the previously recited controller) and included “wherein” clauses. Such “wherein” clauses are contingent clauses and thus, optional. (See MPEP 2111.04 I. and II.). Absent any limitations on which specific structure performs or is capable of performing the functional limitations and/or optional manner of operation, the controller (control unit 18 of Astvatsatrian) is capable of performing the wherein clauses when programmed for operation. Applicant is recommended to reconsider reciting in the claims the controller and that the “wherein” clauses be amended to what the controller is programmed to do. For purposes of examination, the claim limitations are treated as intended use.
By virtue of dependency, the dependent claims 4-9 and 18 are also rejected.
Claim 2 recites “…whereby a constant flow is provided through the mixing chamber, and whereby the holding time of the mixing chamber is defined by the inner diameter of the inlet, the inner diameter of the outlet, and an overall volume of the mixing chamber.” It is unclear and indefinite how the holding time is defined by the diameters and volume of spaces. For purposes of examination, the holding time is any amount of time the fluid flows through when in use. The claim is an apparatus, therefore the use is not relevant.
Claim 3 recites “…wherein the holding time of the mixing chamber is defined by the siphon mechanism.” It is unclear and indefinite how the holding time is defined by the siphon. For purposes of examination, the holding time is any amount of time the fluid flows through the siphon when in use. The claim is an apparatus, therefore the use is not relevant.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zappoli et al. (US 2020/0216257 A1), hereafter referred to as “Zappoli,” in view of Astvatsatrian et al. (US 6,513,337 B1), hereafter referred to as “Astvatsatrian,” and Johnson et al. (US 2008/0041070 A1), hereafter referred to as “Johnson.”
Regarding Claim 1: Zappoli teaches a pod receiver (1, 5) upstream of a mold cavity (4) along a flow path of liquid water (2, 3), the pod receiver (1,5) comprising a pod receiver slot (1) configured to hold a pod (5) containing an additive (8, paragraph [0036]).
Zappoli fails to teach an ice maker appliance, comprising: a cabinet; a chilled chamber defined in the cabinet, the chilled chamber configured to receive a flow of chilled air, whereby an internal temperature within the chilled chamber is at or below the freezing point of water; an ice maker positioned in the chilled chamber, the ice maker comprising: a mold body comprising a mold cavity, the mold cavity configured for receiving a volume of liquid therein and retaining the volume of liquid to form an ice piece in the mold cavity; and a mixing chamber downstream of the pod receiver slot and upstream of the mold body, the mixing chamber configured to retain an amount of water and the additive for a holding time, whereby the additive mixes with the amount of water in the mixing chamber upstream of the mold cavity to form the volume of liquid, wherein the holding time is longer than a mixing time for the additive and the amount of water to form the volume of liquid and the holding time is shorter than a freezing time of the volume of liquid, whereby the volume of liquid received by the mold cavity comprises the additive and the amount of water, and the ice piece formed in the mold cavity comprises the amount of water and the additive.
Astvatsatrian teaches an ice maker appliance (title, 10), comprising: a cabinet (body of 10); a chilled chamber defined in the cabinet (area within 10), whereby an internal temperature within the chilled chamber is at or below the freezing point of water (ice is made inside the cabinet); an ice maker (16) positioned in the chilled chamber (see Figure 1), the ice maker (16) comprising: a mold body (40) comprising a mold cavity (42), the mold cavity configured for receiving a volume of liquid therein and retaining the volume of liquid to form an ice piece in the mold cavity (Column 4, lines 14-18); and a mixing chamber (14) downstream of a dye container (12) and upstream of the mold body (40 having 42), the mixing chamber (14) configured to retain an amount of water (from 20) and an additive (dye in 12) a holding time (functional limitations/intended use), whereby the additive (dye from 12) mixes with the amount of water (from 20) in the mixing chamber (14) upstream of the mold cavity (42) to form the volume of liquid (the mixed liquid product is transferred to 16 with 42 via 26), wherein the holding time (functional limitation, the chamber hold the liquid for some time to mix/flow) is longer than a mixing time for the additive and the amount of water to form the volume of liquid and the holding time is shorter than a freezing time of the volume of liquid (functional limitations/intended use), whereby the volume of liquid received by the mold cavity (42) comprises the additive and the amount of water (via 26), and the ice piece formed in the mold cavity (42) comprises the amount of water and the additive (Column 3, lines 18-35 and Column 4, lines 14-18).
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 an ice maker appliance, comprising: a cabinet; a chilled chamber defined in the cabinet, whereby an internal temperature within the chilled chamber is at or below the freezing point of water; an ice maker positioned in the chilled chamber, the ice maker comprising: a mold body comprising a mold cavity, the mold cavity configured for receiving a volume of liquid therein and retaining the volume of liquid to form an ice piece in the mold cavity; and a mixing chamber downstream of the pod receiver slot and upstream of the mold body, the mixing chamber configured to retain an amount of water and the additive for a holding time, whereby the additive mixes with the amount of water in the mixing chamber upstream of the mold cavity to form the volume of liquid, wherein the holding time is longer than a mixing time for the additive and the amount of water to form the volume of liquid and the holding time is shorter than a freezing time of the volume of liquid, whereby the volume of liquid received by the mold cavity comprises the additive and the amount of water, and the ice piece formed in the mold cavity comprises the amount of water and the additive to the structure of Zappoli as taught by Astvatsatrian in order to advantageously provide an ice maker that can utilize removable pods to make ice infused with flavor/additives (see Astvatsatrian, Column 1, lines 45-63).
Johnson teaches a cabinet (body of 100); a chilled chamber (area inside 100 cooled by 122 and 124) defined in the cabinet (see Figures 2-3), the chilled chamber configured to receive a flow of chilled air (via 124), whereby an internal temperature within the chilled chamber is at or below the freezing point of water (necessary to form ice, paragraph [0048]); an ice maker (104) positioned in the chilled chamber (see Figures 2-3).
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 cabinet; a chilled chamber defined in the cabinet, the chilled chamber configured to receive a flow of chilled air, whereby an internal temperature within the chilled chamber is at or below the freezing point of water; an ice maker positioned in the chilled chamber to the structure of Zappoli modified supra as taught by Johnson in order to advantageously provide natural convection for freezing in the ice mold (see Johnson, paragraph [0048]).
Regarding Claim 2: Zappoli fails to teach wherein the mixing chamber comprises an inlet and an outlet, wherein the additive and the amount of water flow into the mixing chamber via the inlet and flow to the mold cavity via the outlet, and wherein an inner diameter of the inlet is at least twice as large as an inner diameter of the outlet, whereby a constant flow is provided through the mixing chamber, and whereby the holding time of the mixing chamber is defined by the inner diameter of the inlet, the inner diameter of the outlet, and an overall volume of the mixing chamber.
Astvatsatrian teaches wherein a mixing chamber (14) comprises an inlet (see inlet lines into 14) and an outlet (see 26 in Figure 2), wherein an additive (12) and an amount of water (20) flow into the mixing chamber (14) via the inlet (see inlet lines) and flow to a mold cavity (42) via the outlet (from 26 into 42), whereby a constant flow is provided through the mixing chamber (14), and whereby a holding time of the mixing chamber (14) is defined by the inner diameter of the inlet (piping into 14), the inner diameter of the outlet (piping out of 14), and an overall volume of the mixing chamber (dimensions of 14, intended use/functional limitations).
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 the mixing chamber comprises an inlet and an outlet, wherein the additive and the amount of water flow into the mixing chamber via the inlet and flow to the mold cavity via the outlet, whereby a constant flow is provided through the mixing chamber, and whereby the holding time of the mixing chamber is defined by the inner diameter of the inlet, the inner diameter of the outlet, and an overall volume of the mixing chamber to the structure of Zappoli as taught by Astvatsatrian in order to advantageously provide mixing of the water and product prior to delivery to the ice trays (see Astvatsatrian, Column 3, lines 42-53).
Zappoli modified supra fails to teach wherein an inner diameter of the inlet is at least twice as large as an inner diameter of the outlet.
Zappoli modified supra does, however, disclose the ice maker apparatus. Therefore, the change in size or variation in portions/diameters of tubes is design choice or in this case, is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result and optimization through routine experimentation. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, were disclosed in the prior art by Zappoli modified supra, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the ice making apparatus structure, as disclosed by Zappoli modified supra having it operating with the ratios and diameter ranges. Furthermore, the ratios and ranges is recognized by the Examiner to be a very broad range, and a range that an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2144.04 IV A and 2144.05 II A and B.
Regarding Claim 8: Zappoli fails to teaches wherein the mold body is removable from the ice maker appliance.
Astvatsatrian teaches wherein a mold body (42) is removable from an ice maker appliance (16 having slot 40, see Figure 1).
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 the mold body is removable from the ice maker appliance to the structure of Zappoli as taught by Astvatsatrian in order to advantageously provide easy removal of completed ice product and variety in ice cube shapes (see Astvatsatrian, Column 4, lines 14-18).
Regarding Claim 9: Zappoli modified supra further teaches wherein the pod receiver (1 of Zappoli) is removable from the mold body (42 of Astvatsatrian, separate elements).
Claims 3-5 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zappoli et al. (US 2020/0216257 A1), hereafter referred to as “Zappoli,” in view of Astvatsatrian et al. (US 6,513,337 B1), hereafter referred to as “Astvatsatrian,” and Johnson et al. (US 2008/0041070 A1), hereafter referred to as “Johnson,” as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Reynolds (US 8,387,516 B1).
Regarding Claim 3: Zappoli modified supra fails to teach further comprising a siphon mechanism between the mixing chamber and the mold body, wherein the volume of liquid is received by the mold cavity from the mixing chamber via the siphon mechanism, and wherein the holding time of the mixing chamber is defined by the siphon mechanism.
Astvatsatrian teaches a pipe (26) between a mixing chamber (14) and a mold body (42), wherein a volume of liquid is received by a mold cavity from the mixing chamber via the pipe (26 is a conduit of mixed water product, Column 3, lines 42-43).
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 mechanism between the mixing chamber and the mold body, wherein the volume of liquid is received by the mold cavity from the mixing chamber via the mechanism to the structure of Zappoli as taught by Astvatsatrian in order to advantageously provide mixing of the water and product prior to delivery to the ice trays (see Astvatsatrian, Column 3, lines 42-53).
Reynolds teaches a siphon mechanism (70) which is a siphon tube (see Figure 4) that is configured to transfer water from one water/liquid tank to another water/liquid holding container (15 to 55/65), and wherein a holding time of a mixing chamber (55/65) is defined by the siphon mechanism (70 dimensions of 55/65, intended use/functional limitations).
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 siphon mechanism, and wherein the holding time of the mixing chamber is defined by the siphon mechanism to the structure of Zappoli modified supra as taught by Reynolds in order to advantageously provide transfer of liquid from one level to another level using pressure (see Reynolds, Column 5, lines 5-17).
Regarding Claim 4: Zappoli modified supra teaches wherein the siphon mechanism (70 of Reynolds) comprises a siphon tube (70 of Reynolds) extending into the mixing chamber (14 of Astvatsatrian).
Regarding Claim 5: Zappoli modified supra teaches wherein the siphon mechanism (26 of Astvatsatrian modified by 70 of Reynolds) comprises a siphon tube (26 is a conduit of mixed water product, Column 3, lines 42-43, 70 of Reynolds is a siphon) entirely outside of the mixing chamber (see Figure 2 of Astvatsatrian).
Regarding Claim 18: Zappoli modified supra fails to teach further comprising a port in fluid communication with the mixing chamber, the port configured to provide pressure relief in the mixing chamber.
Astvatsatrian teaches a port (lines into 14) in fluid communication with a mixing chamber (14), the port (lines into 14) configured to provide pressure relief in the mixing chamber (14, functional limitation).
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 port in fluid communication with the mixing chamber, the port configured to provide pressure relief in the mixing chamber to the structure of Zappoli modified supra as taught by Astvatsatrian in order to advantageously provide selective communication into the mixing chamber (see Astvatsatrian, Column 3, lines 23-30).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zappoli et al. (US 2020/0216257 A1), hereafter referred to as “Zappoli,” in view of Astvatsatrian et al. (US 6,513,337 B1), hereafter referred to as “Astvatsatrian,” Johnson et al. (US 2008/0041070 A1), hereafter referred to as “Johnson,” and Reynolds (US 8,387,516 B1) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Jung et al. (US 2020/0347535 A1), hereafter referred to as “Jung.”
Regarding Claim 6: Zappoli modified supra fails to teach wherein the siphon mechanism comprises a siphon tube and a removable siphon cap.
Jung teaches a siphon mechanism (123, 129) comprises a siphon tube (123) and a removable siphon cap (129).
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 the siphon mechanism comprises a siphon tube and a removable siphon cap to the structure of Zappoli modified supra as taught by Jung in order to advantageously provide flow control into the siphon tube (paragraph [0101]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zappoli et al. (US 2020/0216257 A1), hereafter referred to as “Zappoli,” in view of Astvatsatrian et al. (US 6,513,337 B1), hereafter referred to as “Astvatsatrian,” Johnson et al. (US 2008/0041070 A1), hereafter referred to as “Johnson,” Reynolds (US 8,387,516 B1), and Jung et al. (US 2020/0347535 A1), hereafter referred to as “Jung,” as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Fassberg et al. (US 2012/0277906 A1), hereafter referred to as “Fassberg.”
Regarding Claim 7: Zappoli modified supra fails to teach wherein an outlet of the siphon tube is positioned in a recess in a floor of a mixing chamber.
Fassberg teaches wherein an outlet of a siphon tube (718) is positioned in a recess (112) in a floor (bottom of 706) of a mixing chamber (706, see Figure 7).
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 an outlet of the siphon tube is positioned in a recess in a floor of a mixing chamber to the structure of Zappoli modified supra as taught by Fassberg in order to advantageously provide flow from one liquid holding container to the chamber base on siphon action (see Fassberg, paragraph [0066]).
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the limitations set forth in independent Claim 10 are not disclosed nor taught by the prior art. Examiner finds the amendments and arguments made by applicant in the remarks dated 11/06/2025 to be persuasive and overcome the prior art of record.
The closest prior art of record is Zappoli et al. (US 2020/0216257 A1), Astvatsatrian et al. (US 6,513,337 B1), Reynolds (US 8,387,516 B1), Jung et al. (US 2020/0347535 A1), and Fassberg et al. (US 2012/0277906 A1).
The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior art does not anticipate nor render obvious the combination set forth in the independent claim 10. The aforementioned reference teaches an ice maker appliance, a cabinet, an ice maker, a chilled chamber, a mold body, a pod receiver, a mixing chamber, and a pod receiver slot.
However, the references relied upon fail to specifically teach the limitations of:
In Claim 10: the references fail to teach or make obvious the specific limitations regarding the configuration of “…wherein the holding time is longer than a mixing time for the additive and the amount of water to form the volume of liquid and the holding time is shorter than a freezing time of the volume of liquid, ...”
Claims 10-17 and 19 allowed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Morgan et al. (US 2010/0263545 A1).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
/ERIC S RUPPERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763