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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 11-20 are currently pending
Claims 1-10 are currently withdrawn from consideration
Claims 11-20 are currently rejected
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements filed on 12/07/2023 and 04/24/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and have been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group II claims 11-20 in the reply filed on 03/26/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the restricted inventions are not independent inventions and that examination of both claimed invention together would not present a serious burden on the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. This is not found persuasive because the issue as to the meaning and intent regarding “independent and distinct” as used in 35 U.S.C 121 and 37 CFR 1.41 has been adequately addressed in MPEP §802.01. Therein, it is stated that the legislative intent was to maintain the substantive law on the subject of restriction practice prior to enactment of 35 USC 121. Such practice permitted restriction between distinct, albeit dependent inventions. If the intent had been otherwise, then only the term “independent” would have been used. Thus, restriction between the distinct inventions set forth in this application is proper even though these inventions are clearly related.
With regard to applicants allegation that joinder of these distinct inventions would not present a serious burden to the U. S. Patent and Trademark Office, such allegations relied on the unsupported assumption that the search and the examination of both the invention would be coextensive. However, the issues raised in the examination of apparatus claims are divergent from those raised in the examination of process claims. Further, while there may be some overlap in the searches of the two inventions, there is no reason to believe that the searches would be identical. Therefore, based on the additional work involved in searching and examining both distinct inventions together, restriction of the distinct inventions is clearly proper.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 3 states “between first electrical contact” and instead should state “between the first electrical contact” to avoid any antecedent issues. 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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a manifold comprising a first interlocking feature configured to receive” on line 3 of claim 11.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 18-20 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 18 recites the limitation "along the lateral direction” on line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "at an external surface” on line 2. It is unclear and confusing whether Applicant is trying to refer to the same ‘an external surface’ as recited on line 2 of claim 16, or a different external surface? FURTHERMORE, claim 19 recites the limitation “a second electrical contact” on line 3. It is unclear and confusing whether Applicant is referring to the same ‘a second electrical contact’ as recited on line 8 of claim 11, or a different second electrical contact?
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the water filtration assembly” on line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Subrahmanya et al. (U.S. 2020/0306671 A1) (hereinafter “Subra”).
Regarding Claim 11:
Subra teaches a refrigerator appliance (see FIGS. 1-2, refrigerator appliance 100) (see paragraphs 1, 7 and 35), comprising:
a cabinet (see FIGS. 1-3, a cabinet or housing 102) (see paragraphs 35-36 and 47-49);
a manifold (see FIGS. 3-5, a filter manifold 210) comprising a first interlocking feature configured to receive a second interlocking feature at a first end of a filtration housing (see FIG. 3, a filtration housing 202) (see FIG. 13, an alignment feature 320 of filter cartridge 204 engaging a complementary feature 322 of filter housing 202) (see paragraphs 47-50) (see paragraph 51 further discussing a first end 222 and a second end 224) (see paragraphs 81-84), wherein the first end comprises one or more of a fluid inlet port or a fluid outlet port (see FIG. 3, an inlet conduit 212 that defines an inlet 214, and an outlet conduit 218 that defines an outlet 220) (see paragraph 50), and wherein the filtration housing comprises a first electrical contact (see FIG. 9, a contact member 300 includes a resilient arm 302, and a first contact 304 and a second contact 306 thus form an electrical connection 308) (see paragraphs 78-81), the first electrical contact positioned on the filtration housing separate and spaced apart from the first end (see FIG. 9, a contact member 300 includes a resilient arm 302, and a first contact 304 and a second contact 306 thus form an electrical connection 308) (see paragraphs 78-81);
an appliance wall at which the manifold is attached (see FIG. 9, a wall 248), wherein a second electrical contact positioned at the appliance wall (see FIG. 9, a contact member 300 includes a resilient arm 302, and a first contact 304 and a second contact 306 thus form an electrical connection 308) (see paragraphs 78-81), the second electrical contact comprising a spring-loaded contact surface in selective contact with the first electrical contact (see paragraph 84 further discussing a contact member 300 including a biasing member 348), wherein installation, removal, or both, of the filtration housing with the manifold causes the second electrical contact to touch a cleaning pad positioned at the filtration housing between the first electrical contact and the first end (see FIG. 9, a contact member 300 includes a resilient arm 302, and a first contact 304 and a second contact 306 thus form an electrical connection 308) (see paragraphs 78-81 and 84).
Although Subra teaches a manifold, an appliance wall, a first contact 304 and a second contact 306, one may broadly interpret that Subra does not explicitly teach the exact configuration and orientation of the structural components, as recited in independent claim 11. However, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the refrigerator appliance of Subra to incorporate and position all of the structural components as recited in claim 11 for optimization purposes (see FIG. 9, a contact member 300 includes a resilient arm 302, and a first contact 304 and a second contact 306 thus form an electrical connection 308) (see paragraphs 78-81 and 84).
Regarding Claim 12:
Subra teaches the refrigerator appliance of claim 11, wherein the cleaning pad comprises a ring extending at least partially around the filtration housing.
Regarding Claim 13:
Subra teaches the refrigerator appliance of claim 12, wherein the first electrical contact comprises a conductive ring extending at least partially around the filtration housing (see FIGS. 10-13) (see FIG. 9, a contact member 300 includes a resilient arm 302, and a first contact 304 and a second contact 306 thus form an electrical connection 308) (see paragraphs 78-81 and 84).
Regarding Claim 14:
Subra teaches the refrigerator appliance of claim 13, wherein the first electrical contact comprises a plurality of parallel conductive rings laterally spaced apart along the filtration housing (see FIGS. 10-13) (see FIG. 9, a contact member 300 includes a resilient arm 302, and a first contact 304 and a second contact 306 thus form an electrical connection 308) (see paragraphs 78-81 and 84), and wherein the cleaning pad is positioned between the plurality of parallel conductive rings and the first end of the filtration housing (see FIGS. 10-13) (see FIG. 9, a contact member 300 includes a resilient arm 302, and a first contact 304 and a second contact 306 thus form an electrical connection 308) (see paragraphs 78-81 and 84).
Regarding Claim 15:
Subra teaches the refrigerator appliance of claim 11, wherein the cleaning pad is positioned along a lateral direction between the first electrical contact and the first end of the filtration housing (see FIGS. 10-13) (see FIG. 9, a contact member 300 includes a resilient arm 302, and a first contact 304 and a second contact 306 thus form an electrical connection 308) (see paragraphs 78-81 and 84).
Regarding Claim 16:
Subra teaches the refrigerator appliance of claim 11, the filtration housing comprising a housing label selectively disposed on an external surface of the filtration housing apart from the first end (see FIGS. 10-13) (see FIG. 9, a contact member 300 includes a resilient arm 302, and a first contact 304 and a second contact 306 thus form an electrical connection 308) (see paragraphs 78-81 and 84).
Regarding Claim 17:
Subra teaches the refrigerator appliance of claim 16, wherein the cleaning pad is positioned on the housing label (see FIGS. 10-13) (see FIG. 9, a contact member 300 includes a resilient arm 302, and a first contact 304 and a second contact 306 thus form an electrical connection 308) (see paragraphs 78-81 and 84).
Regarding Claim 18:
Subra teaches the refrigerator appliance of claim 17, wherein the first electrical contact is positioned on the housing label, and wherein the cleaning pad at the housing label is positioned along the lateral direction between first electrical contact and the first end of the filtration housing (see FIGS. 10-13) (see FIG. 9, a contact member 300 includes a resilient arm 302, and a first contact 304 and a second contact 306 thus form an electrical connection 308) (see paragraphs 78-81 and 84).
Regarding Claim 19:
Subra teaches the refrigerator appliance of claim 16, wherein the cleaning pad is positioned at an external surface of the filtration housing, and wherein the cleaning pad is unobstructed by the housing label from a second electrical contact apart from the filtration housing (see FIGS. 10-13) (see FIG. 9, a contact member 300 includes a resilient arm 302, and a first contact 304 and a second contact 306 thus form an electrical connection 308) (see paragraphs 78-81 and 84).
Regarding Claim 20:
Subra teaches the refrigerator appliance of claim 16, the filtration housing comprising an electrical connector joined to the housing label, the electrical connector defining an intermediate electrical path extending from the first electrical contact to conduct power or communication signals between the water filtration assembly and a separate appliance (see FIGS. 10-13) (see FIG. 9, a contact member 300 includes a resilient arm 302, and a first contact 304 and a second contact 306 thus form an electrical connection 308) (see paragraphs 78-81 and 84).
Other Reference Considered
Froelicher et al. (U.S. 2016/0075566 A1) (hereinafter “Froe”) teaches an electrical connection for an appliance water filter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AKASH K. VARMA whose telephone number is (571)272-9627. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5 pm.
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, Benjamin L. Lebron can be reached at (571)-272-0475. 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.
/AKASH K VARMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights