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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I and species 1 in the reply filed on 07/30/26 is acknowledged. Claims 7-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Inventions II and III, and Species 2 and 3, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Specifically, claim 7 recites “wherein said handle member is positioned below said removeable support…” which appears to be drawn to at least non-elected species 2; with the elected species 1 having the handle member located above the removeable support.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “a first side” and “an opposed side”. However, it is indefinite and unclear as to how the “a first side” and “an opposed side” relate to the previously recited “four sides” as previously recited in claim 1? For purposes of examination, it is assumed that they are referring to the same claim elements, but this should be made clear within the claim itself.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "may be" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). To overcome this rejection, replace the phrase “may be” with “is configured to be”.
Regarding claim 5, the phrase "may be" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). To overcome this rejection, replace the phrase “may be” with “are configured to be”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0341675 (James-Jolly).
Regarding Claim 1, James-Jolly teaches: Claim 1 - a stackable ice mold comprising: a mold (11) having a bottom and four sides for forming a block of ice; a removable support (12) extending from an upper portion of a first side to an opposed side; a handle member (13) including a pair of legs (14) extending downwardly therefrom; wherein said handle member (13) is positioned above said removable support (12) so that said legs of said handle member (13) extend downwardly toward said bottom of said mold (11); and wherein water may be placed into said mold (11) to form an ice block, and wherein said legs (14) are at least partially frozen within said ice block, thereby forming an ice block with said handle member (13) attached thereto, (Figures 1-20).
Claim(s) 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 2,464,515 (Kennedy).
Regarding Claim 1, Kennedy teaches: Claim 1 - a stackable ice mold comprising: a mold (seen in Figures 1, 2 and 4) having a bottom (where (11) points in Figure 2) and four sides (A, B, 5, 6) for forming a block of ice; a removable support (9) extending from an upper portion of a first side to an opposed side; a handle member (1) including a pair of legs (3) extending downwardly therefrom; wherein said handle member (1) is positioned above said removable support (9) so that said legs (3) of said handle member (1) extend downwardly toward said bottom of said mold (seen in Figures 1, 2 and 4); and wherein water may be placed into said mold (seen in Figures 1, 2 and 4) to form an ice block, and wherein said legs (3) are at least partially frozen within said ice block, thereby forming an ice block with said handle member (1) attached thereto, (Figures 1-6).
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.
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 2,464,515 (Kennedy) in view of U.S. Patent No. 10,663,202 (Zhen).
Regarding Claim 6, Kennedy teaches the mold as described above, but does not teach: wherein said ice mold is collapsible for purposes of storage and transport (Claim 6). However, Zhen teaches: Claim 6 – a modular ice mold (1) made from a plurality of combinable panels (3), (Figures 1-3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the mold of Kennedy to have wherein said ice mold is collapsible for purposes of storage and transport (Claim 6) as taught by Zhen for the purposes of allowing for easier movement and transport, and for allowing for modular construction of the mold.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Josh Rodden whose telephone number is (303) 297-4258. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 8-5 MST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joshua Michener can be reached on (571) 272-1467. 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://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSHUA E RODDEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights