DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Status
Claims 1-26 are pending. Claims 21-26 are new. Claims 13-14 and 18-20 have been amended.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: a period is missing at the end of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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: an ice formation device in claims 1 and 19-20.
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.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-7, 9-12, and 26 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 22-33 of U.S. Patent No. 11, 802, 727 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all of the claimed structural elements of the ice maker are disclosed/taught/claimed in the aforementioned patent. The claimed limitations (the ice maker, the water system, the molded support, the water pump, the mounting plate, the bayonet connection, the water level sensor, etc.) are disclosed in the body of the patented claims in the independent claim 22 and the various dependent claims 23-33, that as a whole, the pending application is not patentably distinct.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards to the arguments against the double patenting rejection in the remarks dated 01/05/2026, the office finds these arguments not persuasive against unamended claims 1-7 and 9-12; and new claim 26. Patented Claims 22-33 in U.S. Patent No. 11, 802, 727 B2 still reads on claims 1-7 and 9-12; and new claim 26, as all of the structure claimed in claim 1 is presented in claim 22.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of applicant’s invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., molded snaps, posts, or interleaving geometry formed directly from the support material, or that the claim requires the connectors be integral features of the monolithic support) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). There is no definition in the claims of “integrally formed connectors” or that “integrally formed connectors” are not separate fasteners. Further, paragraphs [0070]-[0072] of applicant’s specification discloses connectors that are projections with screw holes.
For the aforementioned reasons, claims 1-7, 9-12, and 16-17 remain rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5, 10-12, 16-17, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hibino et al. (US 6,484,530 B1), hereafter referred to as “Hibino,” in view of Lobanoff (3,876,327).
Regarding Claim 1: Hibino teaches an ice maker (1 and 2) for forming ice, the ice maker (1 and 2) comprising: a refrigeration system (9) comprising an ice formation device (evaporator 50/51); a water system (74, 12) for supplying water to the ice formation device (see Figure 9), the water system (74) comprising a water reservoir (12) configured to hold water to be formed into ice (functional limitation of 12), passaging (see return line 62 in Figure 1 and in Figure 9) providing fluid communication between the water reservoir (12) and the ice formation device (see return line 62 in Figure 1 and in Figure 9), a water pump (pump attached to pump motor 14 at the bottom) configured to pump water (functional limitation) from the water reservoir (12) through the passaging (see return line 62 in Figure 1 and in Figure 9) to the ice formation device (1 and 2), and a water level sensor (15) for detecting an amount of water in the reservoir (12); a mounting plate (top plate of 13 see Figure 1) connected to at least one of the water level sensor (15) and the water pump (bottom of pump attached to pump motor 14); and a molded support comprising at least one vertically extending support wall formed from a single monolithic piece of molded material (see Figure 1, Column 3, lines 19-25, product by process limitation), the vertically extending support wall including first and second integrally formed connectors (12a and holes for 12a); wherein the first connector is configured to attach the mounting plate (top plate of 13) to the support (13) and the second connector (12a and holes for 12a) is configured to attach the water reservoir (12) to the support (see Figure 2).
Hibino fails to explicitly teach the molded support to be made of molded material.
Lobanoff teaches wherein a molded support is formed by compression molding (Column 3, lines 63-68).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein the molded support is formed by compression molding to the structure of Hibino as taught by Lobanoff in order to advantageously increase the strength of the pump parts and improve resistance to wear and tear during use (see Lobanoff, Column 1, lines 5-16).
Regarding Claim 2: Hibino teaches wherein the support (water tank 13) positions the mounting plate (top plate of 13 see Figure 1) with respect to the water reservoir (12) so that at least one of (a) the water level sensor connected to the mounting plate (top plate of 13 see Figure 1) is configured to detect the amount of water in the reservoir (12) and (b) the water pump (bottom of pump attached to pump motor 14) connected to the mounting plate (top plate of 13 see Figure 1) is configured to pump water (bottom of pump attached to pump motor 14) from the water reservoir (12) through the passaging (see Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 3: Hibino fails to teach wherein the molded support is formed by compression molding.
Lobanoff teaches wherein a molded support is formed by compression molding (Column 3, lines 63-68).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein the molded support is formed by compression molding to the structure of Hibino as taught by Lobanoff in order to advantageously increase the strength of the pump parts and improve resistance to wear and tear during use (see Lobanoff, Column 1, lines 5-16).
Regarding Claim 4: Hibino teaches wherein the mounting plate (top plate of 13 see Figure 1) is configured to connect to both the water level sensor (15) and the water pump (bottom of pump attached to pump motor 14).
Regarding Claim 5: Hibino teaches wherein the mounting plate (top plate of 13 see Figure 1) comprises an integral sensor mount (see vertical plate attached from 15 to top of 13 with screw) for the water level sensor (15) and an integral pump mount (pump motor 14 on top plate of 13) for the water pump (bottom of pump attached to pump motor 14).
Regarding Claim 10: Hibino teaches wherein each of the first and second connectors (12a/ holes for 12a) comprises a projection having a hole formed therein (see screw/fasteners 12a in Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 11: Hibino teaches wherein the molded support (tank 13) comprises a base and the vertically extending support wall protrudes upward from the base (see Figure 9).
Regarding Claim 12: Hibino teaches wherein the vertically extending support wall comprises a first side wall portion, a second side wall portion and a back wall portion extending between the first side wall portion and the second side wall portion (see tank 13 in Figures 1 and 9).
Regarding Claim 16: Hibino teaches wherein the vertically extending support wall comprises a first side wall portion, a second side wall portion and a back wall portion extending between the first side wall portion and the second side wall portion (see tank 13 in Figures 1 and 9).
Regarding Claim 17: Hibino teaches wherein the vertically extending support wall is configured to hold the water reservoir (12) and the mounting plate (top plate of 13 see Figure 1) between the first side wall portion and the second side wall portion, in front of the back wall portion (see tank 13 in Figures 1 and 9).
Regarding Claim 26: Hibino teaches wherein each first connector is spaced apart above each second connector (see holes and screws 12a and holes for 12a in Figure 2).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hibino et al. (US 6,484,530 B1), hereafter referred to as “Hibino,” in view of Lobanoff (3,876,327), as applied to claims 1 and 5 above, and further in view of Hofmann (4, 283, 645).
Regarding Claim 6: Hibino modified supra fails to teach wherein the integral sensor mount and the integral pump mount both comprise bayonet couplings.
Hofmann teaches mounting with bayonet couplings (lobes 33 and 34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein the integral sensor mount and the integral pump mount both comprise bayonet couplings to the structure of Hibino modified supra as taught by Hofmann in order to advantageously provide a secure and sealing connection of the pump elements (see Hofmann, Column 1, lines 50-63).
Regarding Claim 7: Hibino teaches wherein the water level sensor (15) includes a fitting (vertical plate from 15 connection to top plate of 13) and the mounting plate (top plate of 13 see Figure 1) comprises a sensor mount (square plate, see Figure 1, on top of top plate of 13 see Figure 1) for mounting the fitting (vertical plate from 15 connection to top plate of 13) of the water level sensor (15) on the ice maker (1) at a sensing position (in the water) in which the fitting connects the water level sensor (15) to the reservoir (12) for detecting the amount of water in the reservoir (functional limitation).
Hibino modified supra fails to teach the sensor mount being configured to be lockingly engaged with the fitting to releasably mount the fitting on the ice maker at the sensing position.
Hofmann teaches a mount (36) being configured to be lockingly engaged with a fitting (35) to releasably mount the fitting (see Figure 1, via lobes 33 and 34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the sensor mount being configured to be lockingly engaged with the fitting to releasably mount the fitting on the ice maker at the sensing position to the structure of Hibino modified supra as taught by Hofmann in order to advantageously provide a secure and sealing connection of the pump elements (see Hofmann, Column 1, lines 50-63).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hibino et al. (US 6,484,530 B1), hereafter referred to as “Hibino,” in view of Lobanoff (3,876,327) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hofmann (4, 283, 645) and Patel et al. (US 2003/0091440 A1), hereafter referred to as “Patel.”
Regarding Claim 9: Hibino teaches wherein the mounting plate (top plate of 13) comprises a pump mount (pump motor body of 14) for mounting the water pump (pump at bottom of attached motor 14) on the ice maker (1 and 2) for pumping water from the water reservoir (12) through the passaging (see return line 62 in Figure 1 and in Figure 9); wherein the water pump (pump attached to pump motor 14 at the bottom) comprises a pump motor (14) and an intake assembly (bottom of 14 to circulate the water to 50/51) fixed to the pump motor (see Figure 1); wherein the pump mount (pump motor body of 14) is configured to mount the water pump such that the intake assembly extends downward from the pump motor into the water reservoir (12, see Figure 1);
Hibino fails to teach wherein the water pump is configured to be connected to the pump mount by a bayonet connection by rotating the pump motor and the intake assembly together as a unit in relation to the pump mount.
Hofmann teaches a fitting (35) is lockingly engageable (see Figure 1) with a mount (36) by a bayonet connection (lobes 33 and 34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein the fitting is lockingly engageable with the sensor mount by a bayonet connection to the structure of Hibino modified supra as taught by Hofmann in order to advantageously provide a secure and sealing connection of the pump elements (see Hofmann, Column 1, lines 50-63).
Patel teaches a water pump (10) comprising a pump motor (134) and an intake assembly (see paragraph [0040]) fixed to the pump motor (134); and by rotating the pump motor (134) and the intake assembly (see paragraph [0040]) together as a unit in relation to a pump mount (claim 12; housing 138, see paragraph [0040]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein the water pump comprising a pump motor and an intake assembly fixed to the pump motor; and by rotating the pump motor and the intake assembly together as a unit in relation to the pump mount to the structure of Hibino modified supra as taught by Patel in order to advantageously provide a secure and sealing connection of the pump elements (see Patel, abstract).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-15 and 18-25 are allowed.
Claim 8 is rejected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form and amended without any patentably significant broadening of the claims and including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and also overcoming all pending rejections made herein.
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the limitations
set forth in Claims 8, 13-15, and 18-25 are not disclosed nor taught by the prior art.
The closest prior art of record is Lobanoff (3,876,327), Kato et al. (6,109,055), Broadbent et al. (US 2014/0208781 A1), Hoffman (4,283,645), and Hibino et al. (US 6,484,530 B1).
The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior art does not anticipate nor render obvious the combination set forth in the independent claims. The aforementioned references teach a refrigeration system, a water system, a mounting plate, connectors.
However, the references relied upon fail to teach specific the limitations of claims 8, 13-15, and 18-25.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Tenniswood (3,080,726).
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.
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 KIRSTIN U OSWALD whose telephone number is (571)270-3557. The examiner can normally be reached 10 a.m. - 6 p.m. M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Len Tran can be reached at 571-272-1184. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KIRSTIN U OSWALD/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/ERIC S RUPPERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights