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 .
Priority
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed applications, Application Nos. 15/152,300 and 16/991,128, fail to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. Claims 1-27 of the instant application are directed towards a method and a system of suggesting maintenance for an appliance with the steps of obtaining initial signals, establishing baseline performance, obtaining subsequent signals, comparing appliance performance to a limit and then pushing a notification in response to crossing the limit; however, there is not support for such an appliance in the entire disclosure of the instant or parent applications. The original disclosure contains an ice maker but there is no disclosure of equating the ice maker to the newly claimed appliance. One of skill in the art would not associate the newly claimed appliance with an ice maker because the original disclosure does not provide such an indication.
Claims 1-27 are not entitled to the benefit of the prior applications.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: "a refrigeration system for cooling" in claims 1 and 17.
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.
The “refrigeration system for cooling” is sufficiently described in the specification as a refrigerant circuit with compressor, condenser, expansion valve and evaporator (see claims 13, 18 and paragraphs 10, 21, 30).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 1 and 17 contain the limitation "an appliance;" no such term exists within the specification. The original disclosure (specification in particular) does not contain the term “an appliance”. In addition, the specification does not provide any explanation or description for the term “an appliance”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for an ice maker generating set of data over time to determine maintenance indication using a controller (see figs. 2-6), does not reasonably provide enablement for an appliance with a system for receiving initial and subsequent data value and comparing the subsequent data with alarm limit to automatically push notification to a portable device (see claims 1 and 17). The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. Claimed subject matter, "method/system of suggesting maintenance for an appliance with receiving data sets indicating performance of appliance over different periods of time and pushing a notification when subsequent signal data crosses an alarm limit," is not fully supported by the original disclosure because, the specification contains only an ice maker with freeze cycle time, harvest cycle time and water fill time as control parameters, and wherein the controller generates the push notification/message based on the freeze time, harvest time and fill time. Therefore, the specification does not contain support for any other component or machine which is used with a controller to push a notification based on any control parameter other than freeze time, harvest time and fill time. The original disclosure contains no guidance for applying the maintenance suggestion method to any other appliance/machine other than ice maker. In addition, freeze time, harvest time and water fill time as control parameters apply to an ice maker and these parameters would not be useful in suggesting maintenance for a compressor, condenser, or any other machine. The state of ice freezing or harvesting or water fill time may neither have a relation to maintenance of a fan/compressor/condenser nor is such a relation suggested, in the entire original disclosure, for any other appliance other than an ice maker.
Claims 2-16 and 18-27 are also rejected by virtue of being dependent upon the rejected base claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of mathematical concepts that are performed as mental processes without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) "a method of suggesting maintenance by receiving/obtaining signals (data) indicating performance of appliance; after a first time period, deciding/setting an alarm limit for a cooling parameter; receiving/obtaining more signals (data) indicating performance of appliance; determining/deciding whether additional signals (data) cross the set alarm limit; and pushing a notification/alarm/indication to an electronic device when it is determined that additional signals (data) crossed the alarm limit (see claim 1), which are mathematical calculations for gathered data sets at different times; determining if the collected subsequent data sets cross set limit value and then pushing a notification to an electronic device after the determination that are preformed easily as mental processes within a human mind (see MPEP 2106.04(a)). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements include an appliance with a refrigeration system that does not affect the method of suggesting maintenance by gathering data and making determinations about the gathered data exceeding a limit value. A generically recited set of computer elements such as server and processors do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional step of automatically pushing notification to a portable electronic device, when considered separately or in combination, does not add significantly more to the exception because:
a claim to displaying a certain results of the collection and analysis of the gathered data is considered a claim reciting a mental process that can be practically performed in the human mind (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)-III);
a claim requiring a computer/processor to perform the functions, especially with a generic computer retrieving information, comparing data values and displaying the results, is considered a claim including well-understood, routine and conventional computer functions (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)-III-C); and
the claims do not apply the mental processes with/without a computer/processor to a particular machine that is arranged in a particular way to optimize specific results (see MPEP 2106.04(d)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim(s) 1 and 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tirumala (US 2012/0192575 A1) and in view of Broadbent (US 2008/0125882 A1).
In regards to claim 1, Tirumala teaches a processor-executable method (control method executed by at least control system 24, 26, 50, 90, 92, see fig. 3) of suggesting maintenance for an appliance (ice making machine 20 operating at normal and safe modes and detecting faults, see figs. 1-3, abstract and paragraphs 52, 21, 5, where automatic service call for the machine is made in response to fault determination), the method comprising:
receiving initial signals indicating performance of the appliance (receiving signal from bin level sensor that indicates a level of the ice bin 36 has reached for the ice maker 22, see fig. 1 and paragraph 47; Also obtaining/receiving freeze cycle time and water valve inlet on time, see paragraphs 24-26) as the appliance uses a refrigeration system (30) for cooling during an initial period of time (ice making machine using refrigeration system 30 to execute freeze cycle and produce ice, see paragraph 47);
after the initial period of time and based on said initial signals, setting a push notification alarm limit for a cooling parameter of the appliance so that the push notification alarm limit is related to baseline cooling performance of the appliance established during the initial period of time; (setting and updating the water inlet valve on time or average sump water fill time as the alarm parameter after a set of at least three to five initial ice making cycles, see paragraph 45; Also see processor 50 sets freeze time and valve open time at step 82 based on the failure detected by the controller for WLP 40 and/or ITP 42, see paragraphs 46, 50; and fig. 3) at point in time after the initial set of ice making cycles is complete (updating the average water inlet valve on time after the initial set of three ice making cycles, see paragraph 45);
receiving subsequent signals indicating performance of the appliance as the appliance uses the refrigeration system to perform subsequent cooling after the initial period of time (receiving new freeze cycle times, water fill times, see paragraphs 44-45; Also see subsequent signals of freeze cycle time, water inlet valve on time, or timer count of ice making cycles of the Safe Mode 62, see paragraph 49 and fig. 3);
comparing subsequent performance of the ice maker during the subsequent ice making cycles (freeze cycle time, water inlet valve on time, or timer count of ice making cycles of the Safe Mode 62, see paragraph 49 and fig. 3) to the at least one alarm parameter (water inlet valve on time during the subsequent ice making cycles is compared with the historical water inlet valve on time of previous X ice making cycles, see paragraphs 48-50); and automatically pushing a notification to a servicer in response to determining a fault of the ice making machine (see automatic notice sent to a services after determining a fault in the process of ice making, paragraphs 51-54). In addition, Tirumala teaches setting water valve open time during a safe mode cycle 62 that follows previous X number of historical normal ice making cycles (see fig. 3 and paragraphs 26, 45 and 50); wherein the safe mode 62 is performed periodically following normal modes 60, see paragraphs 45-46, where a normal mode includes a complete ice making cycle up to harvesting ice (see paragraph 5), based on conditions (based on valve on time of previous X number of freeze cycles, see block 82, fig. 3 and paragraph 50) at the point in time after the initial set of ice making cycles is complete (plurality of normal mode cycles performed until a fault is detected, see paragraphs 23-25, and X number of freeze cycles suggest plurality of corresponding harvest and hence ice making cycles, see fig. 3). Tirumala also teaches comparing subsequent performance of the ice maker during the subsequent ice making cycles to at least one alarm parameter (at box 84, timer count of the safe mode 62 is compared with time out value associated with the execution of the harvest cycle, see fig. 3 and paragraph 51, where the subsequent performance of the ice maker is interpreted as the time out value associated with the executed harvest cycle(s)); and the controller is further configured to direct the ice maker to conduct a plurality of subsequent ice making cycles after setting the alarm parameter (after steps 82, 84, 70 and 86, see fig. 3; the controller directs ice making machine to perform normal mode ice making cycles until a new fault occurs, see paragraph 51; and repeats the process of performing subsequent ice making cycles, see fig. 3).
However, Tirumala does not explicitly teach pushing a notice/message to a portable electronic device in response to a cooling parameter crossing an alarm limit.
Broadbent teaches that the controller is configured to push a notification to a portable electronic device (remote computer 20 receiving call-out information from monitoring device 14, through steps 58, 64, 70, see fig. 2 and paragraphs 61-62) after determining that the at least one of the measured harvest time, the measured freeze time, and the measured fill time is excessive based on said comparison to said at least one of the baseline freeze time, the baseline harvest time, and the baseline fill time (monitoring device 14 proceeds to call-out at steps 58, 64, and 70 based on harvest and freeze times exceeding the range of maximum and minimum harvest and freeze times at steps 56, 68, 60, or 72, see fig. 2 and paragraphs 61-62).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Tirumala by providing the step of automatically pushing a notification to a portable electronic device after determining that the measured harvest time or the measured freeze time is excessive in comparison to the baseline freeze time or the baseline harvest time as taught by Broadbent for at least one of the plurality of subsequent ice making cycles in the method of Tirumala as modified in order to quickly and efficiently notify the service personal/company about the possibility of persistent ice machine malfunction before the end user realizes the prolonged machine failures (see abstract, Broadbent) and to allow the computer to receive the cycle times and counts and make a determination about calling service personal to address any issues with the ice machine (see paragraphs 23, 57, Broadbent).
In regards to claim 7, Tirumala as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses that the controller is configured to set at least two alarm parameters (processor 50 sets freeze cycle time as the average freeze cycle time based on previous X freeze cycles for an ITP fault; and sets open time of the water valve based on aggregate average of water valve for previous X freeze cycles, see block 82, fig. 3 and paragraph 50) at a point in time after the initial set of ice making cycles is complete (safe mode cycle 62 after completion of normal mode ice making cycles until a fault is detected, see paragraphs 5, 23-25; and figs. 2-3).
However, Tirumala does not explicitly teach determining/setting a third alarm parameter for ice making.
Broadbent teaches that the controller (at least 14) is configured to set at least three alarm parameters (setting maximum harvest time, minimum harvest time, maximum freeze time, and a minimum freeze time, see fig. 2 and paragraph 61) at a point in time after the initial ice making cycles (monitoring device 14 captures the number of energizations per day which is equivalent to the batches of ice produced per day while running ice making machine, see paragraphs 10-11 and 42; and fig. 2; where valve operation and duration precedes logging harvest or freeze times, see steps 54, 66 after step 52, see fig. 2).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have reprogrammed the controller of Tirumala as modified by introducing at least three more alarm parameters of setting maximum and minimum harvest and freeze times as taught by Broadbent after the initial set of ice making cycles in the apparatus/method of Tirumala as modified in order to monitor the state of the ice machines by the service company so the ice machine can be reconfigured or repaired before the end user realizes malfunction at the ice machines (see abstract, Broadbent).
In regards to claims 8 and 9, Tirumala as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses a local controller (processor 50) of the ice making appliance (see figs. 2 and 1) performs the steps of setting a push notification alarm limit (processor 50 sets freeze time and valve open time at step 82 based on the failure detected by the controller for WLP 40 and/or ITP 42, see paragraphs 46, 50, and fig. 3; Also see setting and updating the water inlet valve on time or average sump water fill time as the alarm parameter after a set of at least three to five initial ice making cycles, see paragraph 45).
Also, Broadbent teaches a local controller (electronic monitoring device 14) configured to: repeat the ice making cycles after setting the harvest and freeze times (see conclusion of steps 58, 64, and 70; and repeating ice making cycle with bin switch being open at step 50, see fig. 2 and paragraph 60); comparing, using the controller, at least one of a measured harvest time (see block 54-60), a measured freeze time (66-72), and a measured fill time of each of the plurality of subsequent ice making cycles (after each closing of bin switch at step 50, which indicate subsequent ice making cycles, see paragraph 60) to said at least one of the baseline freeze time, the baseline harvest time, and the baseline fill time (current measured harvest and freeze times compared to the predetermined maximum and minimum range of the harvest and freeze times at blocks 56, 60, 68, and 72, see fig. 2 and paragraphs 61-62); and configured to push a notification to a portable electronic device (remote computer 20 receiving call-out information from monitoring device 14, through steps 58, 64, 70, see fig. 2 and paragraphs 61-62) after determining that the at least one of the measured harvest time, the measured freeze time, and the measured fill time is excessive based on said comparison to said at least one of the baseline freeze time, the baseline harvest time, and the baseline fill time (monitoring device 14 proceeds to call-out at steps 58, 64, and 70 based on harvest and freeze times exceeding the range of maximum and minimum harvest and freeze times at steps 56, 68, 60, or 72, see fig. 2 and paragraphs 61-62).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have reprogrammed the local control of the method of Tirumala as modified to automatically push a notification to a portable electronic device after determining that measured harvest time and/or measured freeze time cross(es) the baseline times in comparison to the baseline freeze time and/or the baseline harvest time as taught by Broadbent for at least one of the plurality of subsequent ice making cycles in the method of Tirumala as modified in order to quickly and efficiently notify the service personal/company about the possibility of persistent ice machine malfunction before the end user realizes the prolonged machine failures (see abstract, Broadbent) and to allow the computer to receive the cycle times and counts and make a determination about calling service personal to address any issues with the ice machine (see paragraphs 23, 57, Broadbent).
In regards to claim 10, Tirumala as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses a local controller (processor 50) for controlling cooling (controlling refrigerant supply during freeze cycle by processor 50, see paragraphs 42 and 39; Also see controlling freeze cycle by processor 50, see paragraph 42).
Claim(s) 2-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tirumala in view of Broadbent as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Kakinuma (US 4,292,812 A).
In regards to claims 2 and 3, Tirumala as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses that the refrigeration system includes a condenser (condenser 32 of the refrigeration system 30, see paragraph 39); however, Tirumala is silent about the indication referring to the condenser needing cleaning maintenance.
Kakinuma teaches an alarm indicating condenser cleaning/maintenance need due to clogging or dust or dirt (see claim 4 and col. 5, line 54 – col. 6, line 13) based on temperature detection at the ice making machine (see claim 4).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Tirumala as modified by providing the notification that includes an indication that the condenser needs cleaning maintenance based on the teachings of Kakinuma in order to safeguard the efficiency of the refrigeration system by promptly removing the clogging material from the condenser and to maintain efficient production of ice with the ice maker.
In regards to claims 4 and 5, Tirumala as modified teaches the limitations of claim 2 and further discloses that the cooling parameter is a cooling time (freeze cycle time) needed for the refrigeration system to achieve desired cooling (for ice making/harvesting), wherein the cooling time is an amount of time needed for the appliance to complete a cooling cycle (a cooling/freezing cycle to make ice that can be harvested, see paragraph 45 and fig. 3).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tirumala in view of Broadbent as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Broadbent (US 2016/0334157 A1) hereinafter referred to as Broadbent157'.
In regards to claim 6, Tirumala as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1 except for the initial period being about 10 days.
However, Broadbent157’ teaches that the controller determines baseline freeze time after 500 freeze cycles run in about 10 days (see paragraph 35).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Tirumala as modified by providing the initial period of time of about 10 days based on the teachings of Broadbent157’ in order to allow the ice maker to be running beyond factory testing and at the final location of the ice maker for a set period of time (see paragraph 35, Broadbent157’).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tirumala in view of Broadbent as applied to claim 10 above and further in view of Metzger (US 7,062,892 B2).
In regards to claim 11, Tirumala as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1 except for transmitting signal between controller and a remote server.
However, Broadbent teaches transmitting signal between local controller (14) and a remote computer (remote computer 20 receiving call-out information from monitoring device 14, through steps 58, 64, 70, see fig. 2 and paragraphs 61-62).
In addition, Metzger teaches an ice processing machine where a processor (104) transmits data to a remote server (144, see claims 8, 18 and fig. 4).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a server that communicates with a processor as taught by Metzger as a remote electronic device server to communicating with the local controller in the method of Tirumala as modified in order to allow remote users to access data on the server from a remote location and save and analyze the ice machine data at a remote location and allow the user(s) to communicate the results and commands with the controller of the ice maker from variety of remote locations.
Claim(s) 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tirumala in view of Broadbent as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Newman (US 5,829,257 A).
In regards to claim 12, Tirumala as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses that the refrigeration system comprises a condenser (32), which inherently condenses refrigerant within the refrigeration system; an evaporator (34), which inherently evaporates refrigerant within the refrigeration system to absorb heat from the ice making apparatus (22, see paragraph 39); however, Tirumala does not explicitly teach a compressor and an expansion device as part of the refrigeration system.
Newman teaches an ice making apparatus (100) including a refrigeration system (see fig. 1) comprising a compressor (154), and a condenser (160), a refrigerant expansion valve (152), an evaporator (146); wherein the compressor, condenser and evaporator are in fluid communication by one or more refrigerant lines (by lines 162, 164, 150, see fig. 1).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a compressor, a condenser, a refrigerant expansion valve, and an evaporator as part of the refrigeration system as taught by Newman to the refrigeration system in the method of Tirumala as modified in order to continuously and efficiently perform ice forming and cooling operations with the help of the refrigeration system by supplying refrigerant to the evaporator.
In regards to claim 13, Tirumala as modified teaches the limitations of claim 12 except compressing refrigerant vapor in the compressor, and expanding the condensed refrigerant in the refrigerant expansion device.
However, Newman teaches an ice making apparatus (100) including a refrigeration system (see fig. 1) comprising a compressor (154), and a condenser (160), a refrigerant expansion valve (152), an evaporator (146); wherein the compressor, condenser and evaporator are in fluid communication by one or more refrigerant lines (by lines 162, 164, 150, see fig. 1); and the compressor compresses refrigerant vapor (inherent function of the compressor), condenser condenses the compressed refrigerant vapor to reject heat from the appliance (air or water cooled condenser, see fig. 1), expanding the condensed refrigerant in the refrigerant expansion valve (152, see fig. 1), and vaporizing the refrigerant in the evaporator to absorb heat from the appliance (see fig. 1 and col. 2, line 63 – col. 3, line 12).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a compressor in fluid communication with the condenser and the evaporator by refrigerant lines as taught by Newman to the refrigeration system in the method of Tirumala as modified in order to continuously and efficiently perform ice forming and cooling operations with the help of the refrigeration system by supplying refrigerant to the evaporator.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tirumala in view of Broadbent and Newman as applied to claim 13 above and further in view of Schlosser (US 2013/0180268 A1).
In regards to claim 14, Tirumala as modified teaches the limitations of claim 13 and Newman further discloses a condenser fan (163) configured to blow air across the condenser (see fig. 1 and col. 2, line 63 – col. 3, line 12).
However, Tirumala does not explicitly teach that the condenser comprises a population of refrigerant passes and a population of fins.
Schlosser teaches a condenser (30) with a population of refrigerant passes (passes, fig. 2A) and a population of fins (plurality of fins, fig. 2A and paragraph 31).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a condenser with a population of refrigerant passes and a population of fins as taught by Schlosser to the refrigeration system in the method of Tirumala as modified for the advantage of an optimal condenser design with fewer/more fins and/or fewer/more passes to reduce the amount of refrigerant needed for improved cooling capacity (see paragraph 31, Schlosser).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tirumala in view of Broadbent and Newman and Schlosser as applied to claim 14 above and further in view of Linstromberg (US 3855812 A).
In regards to claim 15, Tirumala as modified teaches the limitations of claim 14 except a duration of compressor run time for needed cooling.
However, Linstromberg teaches that the cooling parameter is a duration of compressor run time needed to achieve desired cooling (control runs the compressor for a desired period col. 2, lines 27-55 and col. 6, lines 51-67).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a duration of compressor run time needed/desired for ice making cycle as taught by Linstromberg as a cooling parameter for the refrigeration system in the method of Tirumala as modified for the advantage of determining heating or defrost operation times based on the duration of compressor operation to maintain efficiency of the refrigeration system.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tirumala in view of Broadbent and Newman and Schlosser and Linstromberg as applied to claim 15 above and further in view of Kakinuma (US 4,292,812 A).
In regards to claim 16, Tirumala as modified teaches the limitations of claim 15 except pushing a message indicating the condenser needs maintenance.
However, Kakinuma teaches an alarm indicating condenser cleaning/maintenance need due to clogging or dust or dirt (see claim 4 and col. 5, line 54 – col. 6, line 13) based on temperature detection at the ice making machine (see claim 4).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Tirumala as modified by providing the notification that includes an indication that the condenser needs cleaning maintenance based on the teachings of Kakinuma in order to safeguard the efficiency of the refrigeration system by promptly removing the clogging material from the condenser and to maintain efficient production of ice with the ice maker.
Claim(s) 17, 22, 23, and 25-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tirumala (US 2012/0192575 A1) and in view of Broadbent (US 2008/0125882 A1) and further in view of Yum (US 2010/0283573 A1).
In regards to claim 17, Tirumala teaches a system for suggesting appliance maintenance (ice making machine 20 operating at normal and safe modes and detecting faults, see figs. 1-3, abstract and paragraphs 52, 21, 5, where automatic service call for the machine is made in response to fault determination), the system comprising: an appliance (ice making machine 20) having a refrigeration system (30);
wherein the appliance (20) comprises at least one processor (50) in communication with a network (90) and controller (24), configured to execute a maintenance suggestion method (control method executed by at least control system 24, 26, 50, 90, 92, see fig. 3) of suggesting maintenance for an appliance (ice making machine 20 operating at normal and safe modes and detecting faults, see figs. 1-3, abstract and paragraph 5), wherein the processor is configured to:
use the refrigeration system of the appliance for cooling for an initial period of time (ice making machine using refrigeration system 30 to execute freeze cycle and produce ice during previous safe mode, see paragraph 47);
after the initial period of time, automatically set a push notification alarm limit for a cooling parameter of the appliance based on based on monitored performance of the appliance (setting and updating the water inlet valve on time or average sump water fill time as the alarm parameter after a set of at least three to five initial ice making cycles, see paragraph 45; Also see processor 50 sets freeze time and valve open time at step 82 based on the failure detected by the controller for WLP 40 and/or ITP 42, see paragraphs 46, 50; and fig. 3) at point in time after the initial set of ice making cycles is complete (updating the average water inlet valve on time after the initial set of three ice making cycles, see paragraph 45);
use the refrigeration system of the appliance for subsequent cooling after the initial period of time (receiving new freeze cycle times, water fill times, see paragraphs 44-45; Also see subsequent signals of freeze cycle time, water inlet valve on time, or timer count of ice making cycles of the Safe Mode 62, see paragraph 49 and fig. 3);
comparing subsequent performance of the ice maker during the subsequent ice making cycles (freeze cycle time, water inlet valve on time, or timer count of ice making cycles of the Safe Mode 62, see paragraph 49 and fig. 3) to the at least one alarm parameter (water inlet valve on time during the subsequent ice making cycles is compared with the historical water inlet valve on time of previous X ice making cycles, see paragraphs 48-50); and automatically pushing a notification to a servicer in response to determining a fault of the ice making machine (see automatic notice sent to a services after determining a fault in the process of ice making, paragraphs 51-54). In addition, Tirumala teaches setting water valve open time during a safe mode cycle 62 that follows previous X number of historical normal ice making cycles (see fig. 3 and paragraphs 26, 45 and 50); wherein the safe mode 62 is performed periodically following normal modes 60, see paragraphs 45-46, where a normal mode includes a complete ice making cycle up to harvesting ice (see paragraph 5), based on conditions (based on valve on time of previous X number of freeze cycles, see block 82, fig. 3 and paragraph 50) at the point in time after the initial set of ice making cycles is complete (plurality of normal mode cycles performed until a fault is detected, see paragraphs 23-25, and X number of freeze cycles suggest plurality of corresponding harvest and hence ice making cycles, see fig. 3). Tirumala also teaches comparing subsequent performance of the ice maker during the subsequent ice making cycles to at least one alarm parameter (at box 84, timer count of the safe mode 62 is compared with time out value associated with the execution of the harvest cycle, see fig. 3 and paragraph 51, where the subsequent performance of the ice maker is interpreted as the time out value associated with the executed harvest cycle(s)); and the controller is further configured to direct the ice maker to conduct a plurality of subsequent ice making cycles after setting the alarm parameter (after steps 82, 84, 70 and 86, see fig. 3; the controller directs ice making machine to perform normal mode ice making cycles until a new fault occurs, see paragraph 51; and repeats the process of performing subsequent ice making cycles, see fig. 3).
However, Tirumala does not explicitly teach pushing a notice/message to a portable electronic device in response to a cooling parameter crossing an alarm limit.
Broadbent teaches that the controller is configured to push a notification to a portable electronic device (remote computer 20 receiving call-out information from monitoring device 14, through steps 58, 64, 70, see fig. 2 and paragraphs 61-62) after determining that the at least one of the measured harvest time, the measured freeze time, and the measured fill time is excessive based on said comparison to said at least one of the baseline freeze time, the baseline harvest time, and the baseline fill time (monitoring device 14 proceeds to call-out at steps 58, 64, and 70 based on harvest and freeze times exceeding the range of maximum and minimum harvest and freeze times at steps 56, 68, 60, or 72, see fig. 2 and paragraphs 61-62). Broadbent also teaches transmitting signal between local controller (14) and a remote computer (remote computer 20 receiving call-out information from monitoring device 14, through steps 58, 64, 70, see fig. 2 and paragraphs 61-62).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have reprogrammed the processor of the system of Tirumala to automatically pushing a notification to a portable electronic device after determining that the measured harvest time or the measured freeze time is excessive in comparison to the baseline freeze time or the baseline harvest time as taught by Broadbent for at least one of the plurality of subsequent ice making cycles in the system of Tirumala as modified in order to quickly and efficiently notify the service personal/company about the possibility of persistent ice machine malfunction before the end user realizes the prolonged machine failures (see abstract, Broadbent) and to allow the computer to receive the cycle times and counts and make a determination about calling service personal to address any issues with the ice machine (see paragraphs 23, 57, Broadbent).
Tirumala also does not explicitly teach a server and an additional processor in communication with the controller.
However, Yum teaches a server (server part of the controller 180 of remote portable device 100, see paragraphs 24-25) and an additional processor (2310, see fig. 18) in communication with the server and controller (see fig. 18 and paragraphs 102-103).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a remote server and plurality of processors communicating with each other as taught by Yum to the system of Tirumala as modified in order to allow remote users to access data on the server from a remote location and save and analyze the ice machine data at a remote location and allow the user(s) to communicate the results and commands with the controller of the ice maker from variety of remote locations.
In regards to claims 22 and 23, Tirumala as modified teaches the limitations of claim 17 and further discloses that the cooling parameter is a cooling time (freeze cycle time) needed for the refrigeration system to achieve desired cooling (for ice making/harvesting), wherein the cooling time is an amount of time needed for the appliance to complete a cooling cycle (a cooling/freezing cycle to make ice that can be harvested, see paragraph 45 and fig. 3).
In regards to claim 25, Tirumala as modified teaches the limitations of claim 17 and further discloses that the controller is configured to set at least two alarm parameters (processor 50 sets freeze cycle time as the average freeze cycle time based on previous X freeze cycles for an ITP fault; and sets open time of the water valve based on aggregate average of water valve for previous X freeze cycles, see block 82, fig. 3 and paragraph 50) at a point in time after the initial set of ice making cycles is complete (safe mode cycle 62 after completion of normal mode ice making cycles until a fault is detected, see paragraphs 5, 23-25; and figs. 2-3).
However, Tirumala does not explicitly teach determining/setting a third alarm parameter for ice making.
Broadbent teaches that the controller (at least 14) is configured to set at least three alarm parameters (setting maximum harvest time, minimum harvest time, maximum freeze time, and a minimum freeze time, see fig. 2 and paragraph 61) at a point in time after the initial ice making cycles (monitoring device 14 captures the number of energizations per day which is equivalent to the batches of ice produced per day while running ice making machine, see paragraphs 10-11 and 42; and fig. 2; where valve operation and duration precedes logging harvest or freeze times, see steps 54, 66 after step 52, see fig. 2).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have reprogrammed the controller of Tirumala as modified by introducing at least three more alarm parameters of setting maximum and minimum harvest and freeze times as taught by Broadbent after the initial set of ice making cycles in the apparatus/method of Tirumala as modified in order to monitor the state of the ice machines by the service company so the ice machine can be reconfigured or repaired before the end user realizes malfunction at the ice machines (see abstract, Broadbent).
In regards to claim 26, Tirumala as modified teaches the limitations of claim 17 and further discloses a local controller (processor 50) for controlling cooling (controlling refrigerant supply during freeze cycle by processor 50, see paragraphs 42 and 39; Also see controlling freeze cycle by processor 50, see paragraph 42).
In regards to claim 27, Tirumala as modified teaches the limitations of claim 26 and further discloses a local controller (processor 50) of the ice making appliance (see figs. 2 and 1) performs the steps of setting a push notification alarm limit (processor 50 sets freeze time and valve open time at step 82 based on the failure detected by the controller for WLP 40 and/or ITP 42, see paragraphs 46, 50, and fig. 3; Also see setting and updating the water inlet valve on time or average sump water fill time as the alarm parameter after a set of at least three to five initial ice making cycles, see paragraph 45).
Also, Broadbent teaches a local controller (electronic monitoring device 14) configured to: repeat the ice making cycles after setting the harvest and freeze times (see conclusion of steps 58, 64, and 70; and repeating ice making cycle with bin switch being open at step 50, see fig. 2 and paragraph 60); comparing, using the controller, at least one of a measured harvest time (see block 54-60), a measured freeze time (66-72), and a measured fill time of each of the plurality of subsequent ice making cycles (after each closing of bin switch at step 50, which indicate subsequent ice making cycles, see paragraph 60) to said at least one of the baseline freeze time, the baseline harvest time, and the baseline fill time (current measured harvest and freeze times compared to the predetermined maximum and minimum range of the harvest and freeze times at blocks 56, 60, 68, and 72, see fig. 2 and paragraphs 61-62); and configured to push a notification to a portable electronic device (remote computer 20 receiving call-out information from monitoring device 14, through steps 58, 64, 70, see fig. 2 and paragraphs 61-62) after determining that the at least one of the measured harvest time, the measured freeze time, and the measured fill time is excessive based on said comparison to said at least one of the baseline freeze time, the baseline harvest time, and the baseline fill time (monitoring device 14 proceeds to call-out at steps 58, 64, and 70 based on harvest and freeze times exceeding the range of maximum and minimum harvest and freeze times at steps 56, 68, 60, or 72, see fig. 2 and paragraphs 61-62).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have reprogrammed the local controller of the system of Tirumala as modified to automatically push a notification to a portable electronic device after determining that measured harvest time and/or measured freeze time cross(es) the baseline times in comparison to the baseline freeze time and/or the baseline harvest time as taught by Broadbent for at least one of the plurality of subsequent ice making cycles in the system of Tirumala as modified in order to quickly and efficiently notify the service personal/company about the possibility of persistent ice machine malfunction before the end user realizes the prolonged machine failures (see abstract, Broadbent) and to allow the computer to receive the cycle times and counts and make a determination about calling service personal to address any issues with the ice machine (see paragraphs 23, 57, Broadbent).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tirumala in view of Broadbent and Yum as applied to claim 17 above and further in view of Newman (US 5,829,257 A).
In regards to claim 18, Tirumala as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses that the refrigeration system comprises a condenser (32), which inherently condenses refrigerant within the refrigeration system; an evaporator (34), which inherently evaporates refrigerant within the refrigeration system to absorb heat from the ice making apparatus (22, see paragraph 39); however, Tirumala does not explicitly teach a compressor compressing refrigerant vapor and an expansion device expanding the condensed refrigerant as part of the refrigeration system.
Newman teaches an ice making apparatus (100) including a refrigeration system (see fig. 1) comprising a compressor (154), and a condenser (160), a refrigerant expansion valve (152), an evaporator (146); wherein the compressor, condenser and evaporator are in fluid communication by one or more refrigerant lines (by lines 162, 164, 150, see fig. 1); and the compressor compresses refrigerant vapor (inherent function of the compressor), condenser condenses the compressed refrigerant vapor to reject heat from the appliance (air or water cooled condenser, see fig. 1), expanding the condensed refrigerant in the refrigerant expansion valve (152, see fig. 1), and vaporizing the refrigerant in the evaporator to absorb heat from the appliance (see fig. 1 and col. 2, line 63 – col. 3, line 12).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a compressor in fluid communication with the condenser and the evaporator by refrigerant lines as taught by Newman to the refrigeration system of Tirumala as modified in order to continuously and efficiently perform ice forming and cooling operations with the help of the refrigeration system by supplying refrigerant to the evaporator.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tirumala in view of Broadbent and Yum and Newman as applied to claim 18 above and further in view of Schlosser (US 2013/0180268 A1).
In regards to claim 19, Tirumala as modified teaches the limitations of claim 18 and Newman further discloses a condenser fan (163) configured to blow air across the condenser (see fig. 1 and col. 2, line 63 – col. 3, line 12).
However, Tirumala does not explicitly teach that the condenser comprises a population of refrigerant passes and a population of fins.
Schlosser teaches a condenser (30) with a population of refrigerant passes (passes, fig. 2A) and a population of fins (plurality of fins, fig. 2A and paragraph 31).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a condenser with a population of refrigerant passes and a population of fins as taught by Schlosser to the refrigeration system of Tirumala as modified for the advantage of an optimal condenser design with fewer/more fins and/or fewer/more passes to reduce the amount of refrigerant needed for improved cooling capacity (see paragraph 31, Schlosser).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tirumala in view of Broadbent and Yum and Newman and Schlosser as applied to claim 19 above and further in view of Linstromberg (US 3855812 A).
In regards to claim 20, Tirumala as modified teaches the limitations of claim 19 except a duration of compressor run time for needed cooling.
However, Linstromberg teaches that the cooling parameter is a duration of compressor run time needed to achieve desired cooling (control runs the compressor for a desired period col. 2, lines 27-55 and col. 6, lines 51-67).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a duration of compressor run time needed/desired for ice making cycle as taught by Linstromberg as a cooling parameter for the refrigeration system of Tirumala as modified for the advantage of determining heating or defrost operation times based on the duration of compressor operation to maintain efficiency of the refrigeration system.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tirumala in view of Broadbent and Yum and Newman and Schlosser and Linstromberg as applied to claim 20 above and further in view of Kakinuma (US 4,292,812 A).
In regards to claim 21, Tirumala as modified teaches the limitations of claim 20 except pushing a message indicating the condenser needs maintenance.
However, Kakinuma teaches an alarm indicating condenser cleaning/maintenance need due to clogging or dust or dirt (see claim 4 and col. 5, line 54 – col. 6, line 13) based on temperature detection at the ice making machine (see claim 4).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Tirumala as modified by providing the notification that includes an indication that the condenser needs cleaning maintenance based on the teachings of Kakinuma in order to safeguard the efficiency of the refrigeration system by promptly removing the clogging material from the condenser and to maintain efficient production of ice with the ice maker.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tirumala in view of Broadbent and Yum as applied to claim 17 above and further in view of Broadbent (US 2016/0334157 A1) hereinafter referred to as Broadbent157'.
In regards to claim 24, Tirumala as modified teaches the limitations of claim 17 except for the initial period being about 10 days.
However, Broadbent157’ teaches that the controller determines baseline freeze time after 500 freeze cycles run in about 10 days (see paragraph 35).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Tirumala as modified by providing the initial period of time of about 10 days based on the teachings of Broadbent157’ in order to allow the ice maker to be running beyond factory testing and at the final location of the ice maker for a set period of time (see paragraph 35, Broadbent157’).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/9/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument, "disclosure of the present application and the two priority applications are identical," examiner maintains the rejection and points out that "appliance" is currently introduced new matter, which is not supported by the original disclosure.
In response to applicant's argument, "disclosure of the present application and the two priority applications use the word 'appliance' in paragraph 33," examiner maintains the rejection and points out that the word "appliance" is only mentioned with respect to a non-related application (US 14/172,374), which is not a priority/parent application to the instant application. Paragraph 33 of the instant application mentions the word “appliance” for the unrelated application (US 14/172,374).
In response to applicant's argument, "as per MPEP 2163.07(b), refrigeration appliance are incorporated in the instant application from the reference application (US 14/172,374); however, the examiner disagreed because as per MPEP 2163.07(b) some of the information may be incorporated in the application by reference by the document in the specification. Also per MPEP 2163.07(b): “replacing identified material incorporated by reference with actual text is not new matter;” however, providing new definition to appliance is a new matter, which was never supported by the instant application or the priority applications. In addition, the referenced application (US 14/172,374), mentions “refrigeration appliance(s)” and not just “appliance” for refrigerator, freezer, and/or ice makers (paragraph 22, application US 14/172,374). Therefore, there is no clear basis/support for an appliance being an ice maker.
In response to applicant's argument, "claim 1 is not directed towards an abstract idea because specification includes baseline freeze time calculation to allow ice maker to operate at final destination for a period of time and claim 1 recites, after initial period and based on initial signal set alarm limit;" however, the examiner disagrees and maintains the rejection of claim 1. Claim 1 contains no reference to freeze time data, ice maker, or location of the ice maker. In addition, Claim 1 only mentions the steps of gathering data, making determinations and then pushing a notification such as to display result of collection and analysis. No where in claim 1, the mental processes apply to a particular machine arranged in a particular way to optimize specific result. Also, Claim 1 states that the recited mental/abstract steps are for suggesting maintenance for an appliance, which is merely an instruction to implement the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.04(d) I).
In response to applicant's argument, "modifying Tirumala's safe mode to include push notification alarm limit would render Tirumala unsatisfactory for intended purpose because baseline performance would be undesirable for safe mode of Tirumala and safe mode would not result in successful ice making," examiner maintains the rejection of claims and points out that applicant argues that modifying Tirumala would lead Tirumala to be unsatisfactory for intended purpose, but applicant has not provided any argument using the secondary reference to show what teachings of the secondary reference when incorporated into Tirumala would make Tirumala unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to applicant's argument, "Tirumala does not disclose receiving subsequent signals and determining crossing of alarm limit based on the subsequent signals because Tirumala does not teach receiving signals during safe mode," examiner maintains the rejection of claims and points out that Tirumala discloses receiving new freeze cycle times, water fill times, which are subsequent to the initial signals and which indicate performance of the ice making cycle (see above rejection of claim 1). In addition, Tirumala teaches setting and alarm parameter and water valve open time limit based on comparison of previous performance data (see above rejection of claim 1). In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to applicant's argument, "Tirumala does not expressly or impliedly discloses that subsequent signals cross the limit," examiner maintains the rejection of claims and points out that limitation "determining whether subsequent signals cross the limit" is not present in claim 1. Claim 1 requires the pushing notification if cooling parameter cross a limit. Hence applicant’s above argument is inaccurate.
In response to applicant's argument, "timer count of Tirumala cannot be a push notification alarm limit because timer count does not trigger an alarm," examiner maintains the rejection of claims and points out that applicant has ignored the teachings of Broadbent which discloses pushing a notification to a portable electronic device after determining that harvest and freeze time limits exceed the maximum harvest and freeze time limits (see above rejection of claim 1). In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MERAJ A SHAIKH whose telephone number is (571)272-3027. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 9:00-1:00 pm.
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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached on 571-270-7740. 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.
/MERAJ A SHAIKH/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JIANYING C ATKISSON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763