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 1-10 and 12-20 are pending.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/30/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 1/30/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s basic argument is based on newly amended language of a water dispenser coupled to an interior surface of a side wall of the cabinet. Applicant argues that Meuleners fails to disclose a water dispenser coupled to an interior surface of a side wall of the cabinet. The Examiner has considered this argument and respectfully disagrees. As discussed in the 103 rejection below, the Meuleners reference discloses in Figures 2 and 8 the dispenser being coupled to an interior surface of a side wall of the cabinet.
Applicant further argues that the Dhage reference discloses an orientation and relationship of the dispenser, shelf and container for the refrigerator compartment being different from the system described in Applicant’s disclosure. In response to applicant's argument define above, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). The Dhage reference merely suggests and teaches that a water dispenser is known to be located below the food compartment shelf.
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) 1-7, 10 and 12-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meuleners et al. (7658212) in view of Dhage et al. (11781805).
Regarding claims 1, 10 and 18, the Meuleners et al. reference discloses a
refrigerator (22) having an automatic water filling and storage system (Figure 7), the
refrigerator comprising: a cabinet having a fresh-food compartment (Figure 8), shelf
(Figure 1) and a dispenser (28), dispenser nozzle (40) and actuator (42); a door (156)
pivotally mounted to the cabinet and movable between a closed position at least
partially enclosing the fresh-food compartment and an open position for providing a user
access to the fresh-food compartment; a water dispenser (28, 151) coupled to an interior surface of a side wall (Figure 2, Figure 8) the cabinet; a docking base (130) coupled to an interior side of the door; and a container (128) removably held in the docking base, wherein, when the door is in the open position, the water dispenser is configured to dispense water into a secondary container held by the user (see col. 9, lines 25-27), and wherein, when the container (128) is held in the docking base and the door is in the closed position, the water dispenser is configured to selectively dispense water into the container based upon a sensed level of water in the container. See column 9, lines 17-33. The actuator (42) is configured to be manually engaged to dispense water when the door is open (see col. 5, lines 49-56).
The Meuleners et al. reference doesn't disclose the dispenser nozzle and
actuator below the shelf in the food compartment, but is placed in the food
compartment below the freezer shelf (which can broadly be construed as a shelf in the food compartment; see Annotated Figure 2; similar to Figure 8).
PNG
media_image1.png
616
662
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, the Dhage et al. reference discloses another refrigerator (10; see Figure 1) water dispenser having the dispenser, dispenser nozzle and actuator (14) disposed below a fresh-food compartment shelf (18) to dispense water into container (30). Therefore, absent showing any criticality, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the Meuleners et al. device to place the dispenser nozzle and actuator below a fresh-food compartment shelf as, for example, taught by the Dhage reference, since it is well known, conventional in the art and would be obvious to try without unexpected results. Furthermore, absent showing any criticality, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to place the Meuleners water dispenser below a fresh food compartment shelf, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japiske, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 10, the Meuleners et al. reference further discloses the water dispenser being coupled to a side wall. See location of the dispenser in Figure 8.
Regarding claim 18, a sensed level of water is measured by level sensor (144).
Regarding claim 2, the Meuleners et al. reference further discloses wherein the docking base (130) would be located below a horizontal plane defined by the shelf to receive dispensed water.
Regarding claim 3, the Meuleners et al. reference further discloses wherein the water dispenser is located at a side wall of the fresh-food compartment. See location of the dispenser in Figure 8.
Regarding claims 4 and 12, the Meuleners et al. reference further discloses wherein the container (128) has an opening (129) that is configured to align with a nozzle of the water dispenser when the door is in the closed position. See Figure 7.
Regarding claims 5 and 13, the Meuleners et al. reference further discloses wherein the water dispenser comprises an actuator (42) configured to be actuated by the user when the door is in the open position to dispense water from the water dispenser. See column 5, lines 49 - 56. Further, inasmuch structure that is defined by a "button" the actuator (42) meets the claim limitation.
Regarding claims 6, 14 and 19, the Meuleners et al. reference further discloses wherein the actuator is configured to be actuated by the container when the door is in the closed position to selectively dispense water from the water dispenser based upon the sensed level of water in the container. See column 7, line 43 - column 8, line 5.
Regarding claims 7, 15 and 20, the Meuleners et al. reference further discloses a level sensor (144) configured to sense a level of water in the container held in the docking base, wherein, when the door is in the closed position and the level of water sensed is below a low- level threshold, the water dispenser dispenses water into the container. See column 9, lines 2 - 16.
Regarding claims 8 and 16, the Meuleners et al. reference further discloses wherein when the door is in the closed position and the level of water sensed is above a high-level threshold, the water dispenser does not dispense water into the container. See column 9, lines 2 - 16.
Regarding claims 9 and 17, the Meuleners et al. reference further discloses a
presence sensor (146) configured to sense the container in the docking base, wherein, when the container is removed from the docking base, the presence sensor senses the
docking base is void of the container and the water dispenser does not dispense water
when the door is closed. See column 8, line 65 - column 9, line 16.
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