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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 10/29/2025, with respect to the previous 112 rejections of the claims (see FP #6-7 of nonfinal action dated 9/5/2025) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant has amended the claims to obviate the issues. The previous 112 rejections of the claims have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 10/29/2025 regarding the previous 103 rejection under modified Chase have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues modified Chase does not teach the amended limitations pertaining to the drain tank, descale tank, and rinse tank, wherein the drain tank defines a volume larger than the volumes of the descale tank and the rinse tank.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Regarding the tanks, Examiner cannot discern patentable distinction, as the claim language does not assign the tanks as containing any particular fluid (e.g. can a rinse tank simply be broadly construed as a tank for containing rinsing fluid, as opposed to a tank containing rinse fluid? Claim 4, for example, further assigns descaling solution to the descale tank). The controller configuration clause refers to operating the pump to pump first and second fluid(s), which is an intended application of the pump. Regarding the sizing, similar to the previous claims 8-9 rejections, Examiner again cites case law regarding change in size/proportion of Chase’s liquid additive container(s) 36 in accordance with demands of the application. Examiner requires further argument or amendment.
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.
Claim(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chase (US 20120102998) in view of Schlosser et al. (US 5586439, “Schlosser”), Harigai (JP 2000218249), and Senke (US 2332940).
Chase teaches a liquid additive system comprising the following of claim 1 except where underlined:
For Claim 1:
A cleaning vessel configured to fluidly couple to a stand-alone ice making appliance, the cleaning vessel comprising:
a casing (see Figures 2-6, liquid additive system 26, housing 72);
a user interface on the casing (see [0028]. refer to “operator’s interface”);
a pump disposed within the casing (see Figures 2-6, pump 38);
a plurality of tanks within the casing, the plurality of tanks comprising at least a drain tank, a descale tank, and a rinse tank, wherein the drain tank defines a volume larger than each of a volume of the descale tank and a volume of the rinse tank, whereby drained fluid from the stand-alone ice making appliance is contained within the volume of the drain tank (see Figures 2-6, liquid additive container 36);
a fluid port on the casing, the fluid port fluidly coupled to the plurality of tanks (see Figures 2-6, outlet(s) 54); and
a controller disposed within the casing, the controller configured to (see [0021]-[0026]. refer in particular to [0021]):
operate the pump to drain a first fluid from the stand-alone ice making appliance into the drain tank of the plurality of tanks of the cleaning vessel; and
operate the pump to pump a second fluid from the descale tank of the plurality of tanks of the cleaning vessel into the stand-alone ice making appliance (see [0021]-[0026]).
Chase does not teach user interface/controller placement particulars, the drain tank sizing, or the draining operation using the pump.
Regarding the user interface/controller placement, Chase teaches a control board/controller and user interface associated with the liquid additive system 26, as well as an electronics interface located on the housing 72 thereof (see Chase’s [0021]-[0026])
Examiner however, considers placing a controller and associated interface (e.g. switches, etc.) on or in the case/housing of a flushing/cleaning system itself used for an appliance as well-known and refers to Schlosser (see Schlosser’s Figures 1, 4-6, control board/panel 58, cleaning/sterilizing system and case 59, on/off switch 69). Examiner compares Schlosser’s cleaning/sterilizing system and case 59 with Chase’s liquid additive system 26 having housing 72, as both are effectively flushing/cleaning systems for an appliance and house similar components therein (e.g. pump, liquid containers, etc.). Examiner considers the placement of the user interface and/or controller associated with operation of the flushing/cleaning system onto or into the housing of said flushing/cleaning system an obvious rearrangement of parts and or alternatively, predictable variation thereof (see MPEP 2144.04, “Rearrangement of Parts”. see MPEP 2143, “(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results”).
Regarding the drain tank sizing with respect to the descale tank and rinse tank, Examiner considers this to be an obvious change in size/proportion, so as to adjust the capacity in accordance with the demands of the application (see MPEP 2144.04, “Change in Size/Proportion”).
Regarding the pump performing draining, Examiner however, considers it well-known in the cleaning arts regarding flushing/descaling operations to use reversible pumps to both discharge cleaning/descaling fluid for flushing and then being used to suction the contents back. Examiner refers to Harigai, who teaches such an arrangement whereby the pump returns contents back into the tank of cleaning fluid (see Harigai’s Figure 1, cleaning liquid tank 10, pump 12, fluid direction switching device 18, pipe 20. machine translation, [0007]-[0009]). Examiner considers Harigai’s pump 12 appears to be reversible, but if challenged regarding fluid direction switching device 18, Examiner further cites Senke (see Senke’s Figure 1, flexible member 14, pump 18, pipe 19. page 2, column 2, lines 58-69).
Modifying Chase’s pump 38 to be a reversible pump would predictably allow flushing with cleaning/descaling fluid contained within liquid additive containers 36 and then to use the pump to suction used cleaning fluid or waste back into the liquid additive containers 36 for collection and disposal. Examiner notes that Chase already teaches removal/replacement of liquid additive containers 36 (see Chase’s [0019]).
Modified Chase teaches claim 1.
Modified Chase also teaches the following:
For Claim 2:
The cleaning vessel of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to operate the pump to drain fluid and/or pump fluid in response to a signal from the user interface (refer to claim 1 rejection in view of Chase. see Chase’s [0022], [0024], [0026]). Chase teaches electronics interface of housing 72 receives instructions to operate the components.
For Claim 3:
The cleaning vessel of claim 1, wherein the fluid port of the cleaning vessel fluidly couples to a fluid port of the stand-alone ice making appliance (see Chase’s Figures 2-6, outlet 54). Examiner notes that the stand-alone ice making appliance is an intended application/use of liquid additive system 26. If the separability of outlet(s) 54 from conduit 70 is argued, Examiner cites case law regarding making separable (see MPEP 2144.04, “Making Separable”).
For Claim 4:
The cleaning vessel of claim 1, wherein the descale tank of the plurality of tanks is filled with descaling solution, thereby aiding descaling the stand-alone ice making appliance when pumped into the stand-alone ice making appliance (see Chase’s [0021]).
For Claim 5:
The cleaning vessel of claim 1, wherein the drain tank of the plurality of tanks is initially empty, such that when fluid drains from the stand-alone ice making appliance, the empty tank may fill with the drained fluid (see MPEP 2114, MANNER OF OPERATING THE DEVICE DOES NOT DIFFERENTIATE APPARATUS CLAIM FROM THE PRIOR ART). Chase’s liquid additive containers 36 can adopt a “spent” state (see Chase’s [0019]. refer to “spent”/”spent container”). Examiners considers one of ordinary skill in the art would expect this “spent” state to mean the liquid additive containers 36 have been emptied of their contents.
For Claim 6:
The cleaning vessel of claim 1, wherein the pump of the cleaning vessel is a dual-direction pump, configured for operating in two directions of flow (refer to claim 1 rejection in view of Harigai and Senke). Harigai appears to teach a reversible pump, and if challenged, this appears to be taught by Senke.
For Claim 7:
The cleaning vessel of claim 1, wherein each tank of the plurality of tanks of the cleaning vessel is coupled to a respective valve, wherein the controller is configured to operate one of the respective valves when draining and/or pumping fluid to and/or from each tank (refer to claim 1 rejection. see Chase’s Figures 2-6, liquid additive container 36, micro actuated valves 68. [0021]). Chase teaches the user/operator selecting the liquid additives to be dispensed and controlling/sequencing the valves based on said selection.
For Claim 8:
The cleaning vessel of claim 1, wherein the drain tank of the plurality of tanks of the cleaning vessel defines an internal volume between one half of a gallon and a gallon of fluid (see MPEP 2144.04, “Change in Size/Proportion”). Adjusting the capacity in accordance with the demands of the application would constitute an obvious change in size/proportion.
For Claim 9:
The cleaning vessel of claim 8, wherein each of the descale tank and the rinse tank of the plurality of tanks of the cleaning vessel each define an internal volume between one quarter of a gallon and three-quarters of a gallon of fluid (see MPEP 2144.04, “Change in Size/Proportion”). Adjusting the capacity in accordance with the demands of the application would constitute an obvious change in size/proportion.
Conclusion
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 MARC LORENZI whose telephone number is (571)270-7586 and fax number is (571)270-8586. The examiner can normally be reached from 9-5 M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Gordon Baldwin at 571-272-5166. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/MARC LORENZI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights