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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that Karkos does not utilize a number of pulses from the hall sensor to determine when the motor is stopped, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Further, it has been held that the recitation that an element is “configured to” perform a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. It does not constitute a limitation in any patentable sense. In re Hutchison, 69 USPQ 138. In this case, Karkos states the hall effect sensor is used to mark the motors movement based on a location of zero-crossing(s) of the back EMF (Para. 90). Zero-crossing(s) of the back EMF (Electromotive Force) are known in the art as specific, periodic points in a motor's operating cycle where the back EMF voltage induced in an unpowered (floating) coil crosses zero as it alternates between positive and negative. Thus, alternating detection from when the wavefrom crosses from an energized state to an unenergized state (vice versa) are detected otherwise referred to as a pulsing (to expand and contract in a rhythmic manner), such that if no crossing is detected the controller knows the motor has stopped rotating. Applicant has not delineated any particular type of pulse to be detected simply that a hall effect sensor monitors pulses in which Karkos clearly teaches. Further recitation is needed to properly differentiate from the prior art of record.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 9-13, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Karkos, Jr. et al. (US 2003/0197080 A1).
Re: Claim 1, Karkos discloses the claimed invention including A metered ice dispenser system comprising: a brushless direct current (DC) gearmotor (300) (Para. 62, brushless dc motor) comprising: a motor; at least one integrated hall sensor configured to monitor a rotation of the motor (Para. 63, hall sensor to monitor motor); and a microcontroller (700) in communication with the motor and the at least one integrated hall sensor (Para. 63, controller communicating with motor and sensor); an ice wheel (14) coupled with the brushless DC gearmotor such that rotation of the motor of the brushless DC gearmotor rotates the ice wheel (Para. 59, motor rotates wheel), wherein ice dispenses from the metered ice dispenser system as the ice wheel rotates (Fig. 2, Para. 59, ice dispensed); a system interface (760) configured to receive an input (Para. 91, interface); a processor in communication with the brushless DC gearmotor and the system interface (Para. 94, processor in communication), the processor configured to: receive information from the system interface identifying the input; and transmit control information to the brushless DC gearmotor based on the information received from the system interface (Para. 95, processor receives input and transmits information to motor); wherein the microcontroller of the brushless DC gearmotor is configured to receive the control information from the processor, and based on the control information (Para. 95-96, control information from processor): start the motor; monitor pulses received from the at least one integrated hall sensor indicating a rotation of the motor (Para. 90, monitors pulsing between the zero crossing); and stop the motor after a number of pluses as indicated in the control information is received from the at least one integrated hall sensor (Para. 95, motor is inherently capable being operated to desired measured parameters including those recited in this claim).
Re: Claim 2, Karkos discloses the claimed invention including the control information comprises a speed, a direction, and a number of pulses to rotate the motor (Para. 90 & 95, motor may be operated to desired measured parameters).
Re: Claim 3, Karkos discloses the claimed invention including the control information is a data string (Para. 90 & 95, string of data parameters).
Re: Claim 4, Karkos discloses the claimed invention including to start the motor, the microcontroller is configured to provide power to the motor; and stop the motor, the microcontroller is configured to cease power to the motor (Para. 95, motor may be operated to desired measured parameters).
Re: Claim 5, Karkos discloses the claimed invention including the ice wheel defines a plurality of paddles (14) configured to retain an amount of ice between adjacent paddles of the plurality of paddles as the ice wheel rotates (Depicted in Fig. 2); and the metered ice dispenser further comprises a dispense chute (16) configured to allow ice from between adjacent paddles of the plurality paddles of the ice wheel to flow into the dispense chute and out of the dispense chute and into a receptacle (22) (Fig. 2, Para. 59, paddles move ice into chute).
Re: Claim 7, Karkos discloses the claimed invention including the system interface is a user interface; and the user interface comprises at least one of a touchscreen or a plurality of buttons, where at least two of the plurality of buttons correspond to different amounts of ice to dispense (Depicted in Fig. 1, Para. 95, input into the plurality of buttons defines the operating parameters).
Re: Claim 9, the device of Karkos is inherently capable of performing the claimed method recited in this claim as evidenced in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Re: Claim 10, the device of Karkos is inherently capable of performing the claimed method recited in this claim as evidenced in the rejection of claim 2 above.
Re: Claim 11, the device of Karkos is inherently capable of performing the claimed method recited in this claim as evidenced in the rejection of claim 3 above.
Re: Claim 12, the device of Karkos is inherently capable of performing the claimed method recited in this claim as evidenced in the rejection of claim 4 above.
Re: Claim 13, the device of Karkos is inherently capable of performing the claimed method recited in this claim as evidenced in the rejection of claim 7 above.
Re: Claim 15, the rejection of claim 1 above covers the limitations recited in this 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.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karkos, Jr. et al. (US 2003/0197080 A1) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Lents et al. (US Patent No. 4,676,405).
Re: Claim 6, Karkos discloses the claimed invention except for a baffle. However, teaches a baffle (55) over the ice wheel above the dispense chute (40), wherein the baffle is configured to level a top of ice between adjacent paddles of the plurality of paddles of the ice wheel that are positioned above the dispense chute (Depicted in Fig. 8).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing date to include baffle as taught by Lents, since Lents states in col. 4, lines 7-9 that such a modification provides a separator shelf for isolating and moving ice into the chute while preventing oversized ice from moving therein.
Claim(s) 8 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karkos, Jr. et al. (US 2003/0197080 A1) as applied to claim 1 and 9 respectively above, and further in view of Kewalramani et al. (US 2024/0351850 A1).
Re: Claims 8 and 14, Karkos discloses the claimed invention except for stating another system of a beverage system. However, Kewalramani teaches an ice dispenser (114) and a system interface (108) is configured to receive the input from another system (906) of a beverage system (Depicted in Fig. 10).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing date to include receiving input from another system of beverage dispensing as taught by Kewalramani, since Kewalramani states in paragraph 93 that such a modification can receive or process drink orders for the drink preparation apparatus remotely, allowing the user to request a dispensing procedure when away from the device.
Conclusion
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 CHARLES P. CHEYNEY whose telephone number is (571)272-9971. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 4:30 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, Paul Durand can be reached at 571-272-4459. 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.
/CHARLES P. CHEYNEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754