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 .
Claims Pending: 1 – 6, 8 – 10, 21 – 25, 27 – 30 and 32.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments based on the newly filed amendment of 6/9/26, with respect to claims 1, 21 and 30 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 102(a)(1) rejection under Veit of 3/12/26 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, based on the newly filed amendment of 6/9/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 21 under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Mazur, Leete et al., Kang et al. and Anderson et al.
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.
Claim 32 is 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.
Regarding claim 32, it is unclear as to how the system comprises both clip and mounting holes (claim 1) and a ratcheting rack and pinion system.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8, 10, 21- 25 and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mazur (8069774) in view of Leete et al. (5350091) and further in view of Kang et al. (8152258).
Regarding claims 1 and 21, the Mazur reference discloses a system (Fig. 1) for
filling a fluid receptacle with a fluid, the system comprising: a filling head (Fig. 6), the filling head comprising one or more nozzles (tubes 36), each of the one or more nozzles having: an outlet; and a valve (inherent), the valve configured to open and close such that when the valve is opened fluid flows through the one or more nozzles and out of the outlet and when the valve is closed fluid may not flow is prevented from flowing through the one or more nozzles (col. 6, lines 7-24), one or more fluid receptacles (17); and
a receptacle support shelf (25), the receptacle support shelf configured to support one
or more fluid receptacles (17), wherein the receptacle support shelf is configured
beneath the filling head and is configured to move along a vertical axis relative to the
filling head (see Fig. 14; col. 5, lines 17-32).
The Mazur reference doesn't disclose the valve being rotatable around a pivot
between closed and open positions by a knob. However, the Leete et al. reference
discloses another fluid filling system (Figure 18) having a rotatable valve (14.1; Fig. 21)
that pivots open and closed by a knob (68.1 on cap 18; Fig. 21) to control flow of fluid from container (24) to container (i.e., tank or container being filled; see col. 3, lines 8 -
12 and col. 5, lines 6-17). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the Mazur device to have a
knob controlled pivotable valve as, for example, taught by the Leete et al. reference
wherein so doing would amount to mere substitution of one valve for another within the
art (i.e., valve controlled fluid transfer) and the selection of any of these valves would
work on the Mazur device without unexpected results.
Further, the Mazur reference discloses the apparatus being configured to be stored or built into a refrigerator (col. 4, lines 10 – 18), but doesn’t explicitly disclose an adjustable refrigerator support shelf being clipped into mounting holes placed in a refrigerator. However, the Kang et al. reference discloses a refrigerator having an adjustable support shelf with clips (420) and mounting holes (320; see Figure 6) to conveniently adjust shelf when needed. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to further modify the Mazur device to have a refrigerator with an adjustable shelf (if not already) as, for example, taught by the Kang et al. reference, since adjustable shelves within refrigerators is well known, conventional and would be obvious to try without unexpected results.
Regarding claims 2 and 22, Mazur further discloses wherein the system is
configured for use inside of a refrigerator (col. 3, lines 55-59).
Regarding claims 3 and 23, Mazur further discloses wherein the one or more
nozzles are fluidly coupled to a fluid source (10 and 14; col. 4, lines 34-40 and col. 6,
lines 36-50). Further, fluid source (18) and manifold (35) meet the claim limitation.
Regarding claims 4 and 24, modified Mazur discloses the invention (discussed
supra) including a fill height sensor (41) and filling tube (36), the fill height sensor
communicatively coupled to the valve, wherein the fill height sensor is configured to
communicate a signal to the valve to close the valve if the fill height sensor determines
a fluid height inside of the fluid receptacle has reached a predetermined fill height (col.
6, lines 7-24). The Mazur reference doesn't disclose the fill height sensor being
disposed within the filling tube. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill
in the art at the time the invention was made to position the Mazur fill height sensor (41)
within the filling tube (36), since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention
involves only routine skill in the art. /n re Japiske, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 5, wherein Mazur further discloses the fill height sensor
comprises a pressure sensor (col. 6, lines 16-21; particularly line 20).
Regarding claims 6 and 25, Mazur further discloses the opening and closing of
the valve is controlled by a CPU, which meets "electronic activation device" (col. 6, lines
7-24).
Regarding claim 8, Mazur further discloses wherein the fluid source (18)
comprises a fluid reservoir (35), the fluid reservoir configured vertically above the one or
more nozzles (36). Further, fluid reservoir (10) is used to fill water inlet (14) on top of the
housing (1) to supply water to the nozzles.
Regarding claim 10, Mazur further discloses wherein the receptacle support
shelf (25) is configured to be adjusted to one or more predetermined positions along the vertical axis (col. 5, lines 17-23).
Regarding claim 29, the adjustable refrigerator shelf allows for adjustment to one or more predetermined positions.
Claim(s) 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Mazur (8069774), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Anderson et al. (6065821).
Regarding claim 32, modified Mazur discloses the invention (discussed supra),
but doesn't disclose wherein the receptable support shelf comprises a ratcheting rack and pinion system configured to adjust the height of the receptacle support shelf.
The Anderson et al. reference discloses a refrigerator with a shelf support having shelf height adjustments by way of a rack (58) and pinion system (95, 96) (col. 7, lines 7-37, Figure 3) to easily adjust the position of shelving within the refrigerator. Therefore, it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective
filing date to further modify the Mazur device to have a refrigerator with rack and pinioin height adjustable shelving as, for example, taught by the Anderson et al. reference since it is well known in the art, conventional and would be obvious to try without unexpected results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 27 and 28 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 30 is allowed.
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 TIMOTHY LEWIS MAUST whose telephone number is (571)272-4891. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7am - 5pm.
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, Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607. 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.
/TIMOTHY L MAUST/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights