Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election without traverse of Group I-A (claims 1-4, 9, and 10) in the reply filed on 10/24/25 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that "no search or examination burden will be placed on the Examiner as the search for the alleged species and sub-species therein, will necessarily involve the same or overlapping classes” (Applicant’s Arguments, 1:16-18). However, the examiner disagrees. As set forth in the restriction requirement dated 8/27/25, the inventions as claimed are distinct because they require materially different structures. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 5-8 and 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. The examiner notes that upon the finding of an allowable linking claim (i.e. claim 1), all non-elected claims depending from the allowable linking claim will be reconsidered for rejoinder.
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 1-4, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite.
Regarding claim 1, the following features are indefinite:
“…particularly…” (claim 1) – The introduction of the term “particularly” makes the metes and bounds of claim 1 unclear. The term is recognized as exemplary language, as it is not clear whether the limitation is required or not.
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 for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35
U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richmond (US 8,151,596) in view of Geigel (US 9,245,403).
Regarding claim 1, Richmond discloses a refrigerator appliance comprising:
a cabinet (opposing sides of 14, 15) defining a storage compartment (inside);
a door (14, 15) attached to the cabinet to selectively restrict access to the storage compartment;
a dispenser assembly (40) attached to the cabinet at a dispenser recess, the dispenser assembly comprising a dispenser conduit (80) disposed within the dispenser recess, and a liquid level sensor (93-100, 104-111) mounted at the dispenser recess to detect a volume below the dispenser conduit (4:47-60);
a controller (49) operably coupled to the dispenser assembly
Richmond is silent regarding a user-detection assembly, evaluating user presence, and directing based on the evaluated user presence. However, Geigel teaches a user-detection assembly, evaluating user presence, and directing based on the evaluated user presence (3:6-15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Richmond to include the user-detection assembly, evaluating user presence, and directing based on the evaluated user presence, as taught be Geigel, to improve utility and convenience.
Regarding claim 2, in addition to the limitations in claim 1, Richmond is silent regarding wherein evaluating user presence is in response to receiving the autofill signal. However Geigel teaches wherein evaluating user presence is in response to receiving the autofill signal (3:6-15; this feature is necessarily included in the combination statement of claim 1).
Regarding claim 3, in addition to the limitations in claim 2, Richmond further discloses wherein prevent the flow of fluid from the dispenser conduit (col. 2, ll. 35-42; col. 5, ll. 7-22). In other words, Richmond prevents dispensing under certain conditions. Richmond is silent regarding wherein evaluating user presence comprises determining a user-absence condition, and wherein directing the dispenser assembly comprises holding the dispenser assembly in a closed state to prevent the flow of fluid from the dispenser conduit. However, Geigel teaches wherein evaluating user presence comprises determining a user-absence condition (col. 3, ll. 18-21), and wherein directing the dispenser assembly comprises holding the dispenser assembly in a closed state to prevent the flow of fluid from the dispenser conduit (col. 10, ll. 33-62). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Richmond to include the user presence and absence detection feature of Geigel in order to improve control of dispensing and prevent unintended dispensing.
Regarding claim 4, in addition to the limitations in claim 2, Richmond is silent regarding wherein evaluating user presence comprises determining a proximal-user condition, and wherein directing the dispenser assembly comprises directing the dispenser assembly to an open state to dispense fluid from the dispenser conduit according to an autofill sequence. However, Geigel teaches wherein evaluating user presence comprises determining a proximal-user condition (detecting presence of object in proximity of device sensors, col. 10, ll. 33-62), and wherein directing the dispenser assembly comprises directing the dispenser assembly to an open state to dispense fluid from the dispenser conduit according to an autofill sequence (col. 6, ll. 24-42). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Richmond to include the detection of user presence or a user absence condition, including detection based on the proximity of the user as taught by Geigel, in order to control dispensing based on the proximity of a user to dispenser.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SPE DAVID ANGWIN whose telephone number is (571)-270- 3735. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5 EST. 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 https://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. 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.
/DAVID P ANGWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Prosecution Insights