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 3 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claims 1 and 12 have been amended to include the limitations from dependent claims 6 and 16, further limiting the external device to only a stand mixer (from claims 7 and 17): “obtain a target volume of water from the external network, wherein the target volume of water is communicated from a stand mixer”.
As explained in the previous Action, Gillkey discloses that the target volume of water (abstract: “requested volume of water) is communicated from an external device in operative communication with a refrigerator via an external network. Gillkey does not specify that the external device is a stand mixer.
Boyce discloses a refrigerator in operative communication with a stand mixer via an external network and that data can be exchanged from the stand mixer to a server and mobile device as needed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to incorporate a stand mixer as one of the external devices in communication with Gillkey’s refrigerator since both a stand mixer and refrigerator are part of food preparation in a home. (Boyce: ¶ [0019])
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) 1-4, 7-9, 12-14, 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gillkey (U.S. Pub. 2024/0027127) in view of Boyce, et al. (“Boyce”) (U.S. Pub. 2019/0020719).
Regarding claim 1, Gillkey discloses a refrigerator appliance (100) comprising:
a chilled chamber (122, 124) defined within a cabinet (120);
a door (126) providing selective access to the chilled chamber, the door defining a dispenser recess (138);
a dispensing assembly (114) mounted to the door for selectively providing water through the dispenser recess; and
a controller (150) in operative communication with the dispensing assembly and an external network, the controller being configured to:
obtain a target volume of water from the external network (¶ [0036], Fig. 6: 302);
detect a presence of a container (111) within the dispenser recess (¶ [0042]); and
dispense the target volume of water into the container using the dispensing assembly (¶ [0041], Fig. 6, 308).
Gillkey discloses that the target volume of water (abstract: “requested volume of water) is communicated from an external device (1000) in operative communication with the external network (2000). Gillkey does not specify that the external device is a stand mixer.
Boyce discloses a refrigerator (¶ [0019]) in operative communication with a stand mixer (¶ [0019]: 12) via an external network (10) and that data can be exchanged from the stand mixer (12) to a server and mobile device as needed (¶ [0017]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate a stand mixer as one of the external devices since it is part of food preparation in a home. (¶ [0019])
Regarding claim 2, Gillkey discloses that the refrigerator appliance further comprises a container sensing assembly (112) configured to detect the presence of the container within the dispenser recess.
Regarding claim 3, Gillkey discloses that the container sensing assembly comprises at least one a proximity sensor (152, 154).
Regarding claim 4, Gillkey discloses that the refrigerator appliance further comprises an actuation mechanism (132) for triggering the dispensing assembly, wherein the actuation mechanism is configured to detect the presence of the container (via controller 130 and sensors 152, 154).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Gillkey discloses that the target volume of water (abstract: “requested volume of water) is communicated from an external device (stand mixer as modified by Boyce, above) in operative communication with the external network (2000) a button is pressed (claim 8: tapped) on a user interface of the external device (stand mixer as modified by Boyce, above).
Regarding claim 9, Gillkey discloses that the target volume of water is communicated from using a software application (¶ [0034]: “apps”) on a remote device connected to the external network (2000).
Regarding claim 12, Gillkey discloses a dispensing assembly of a refrigerator appliance (100) able to perform the following steps during normal use:
the refrigerator appliance being in operative communication with an external network (2000);
obtaining a target volume of water from the external network (¶ [0041], Fig. 6, 308);
detecting a presence of a container (111) within a dispenser recess (¶ [0042]); and
dispensing the target volume of water into the container using the dispensing assembly (¶ [0041], Fig. 6, 308).
Gillkey discloses that the target volume of water (abstract: “requested volume of water) is communicated from an external device (1000) in operative communication with the external network (2000).
Gillkey does not specify that the external device is a stand mixer.
Boyce discloses a refrigerator (¶ [0019]) in operative communication with a stand mixer (¶ [0019]: 12) via an external network (10) and that data can be exchanged from the stand mixer (12) to a server and mobile device as needed (¶ [0017]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate a stand mixer as one of the external devices since it is part of food preparation in a home. (¶ [0019])
Regarding claim 13, Gillkey discloses that the refrigerator appliance further comprises a container sensing assembly (112) configured to detect the presence of the container within the dispenser recess.
Regarding claim 14, Gillkey discloses that the refrigerator appliance further comprises an actuation mechanism (132) for triggering the dispensing assembly, wherein the actuation mechanism is configured to detect the presence of the container (via controller 130 and sensors 152, 154).
Regarding claims 17 and 18, Gillkey discloses that the target volume of water (abstract: “requested volume of water) is communicated from an external device (stand mixer as modified by Boyce, above) in operative communication with the external network (2000) a button is pressed (claim 18: tapped) on a user interface of the external device (stand mixer as modified by Boyce, above).
Regarding claim 19, Gillkey discloses that the target volume of water is communicated from using a software application (¶ [0034]: “apps”) on a remote device connected to the external network (2000).
Claim(s) 5 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gillkey and Boyce as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Janardhanam, et al. (“Janardhanam”) (U.S. Pat. 7,475,555).
Regarding claim 5, Gillkey discloses that the controller is configured to add a target volume of water from an external device and auto-dispense the target volume of water assembly (¶ [0041], Fig. 6, 308).
Gillkey does not specify that the controller is configured to determine that a recipe is being performed.
Janardhanam discloses a water dispenser assembly with a controller (170) that when “a recipe calls for certain amount of water (e.g., 1/3 cup, 1/2 cup, 1 tablespoon, 2 teaspoons, 6 ounces, etc.), and instead of using a measuring cup, the user can use any size container (large enough to hold the desired amount) by entering the desired amount using interface 148, and receiving the desired amount via dispenser 146.” (col. 3, lines 69-64)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize Gillkey’s water dispenser assembly to accurately and automatically dispense water for use in recipes instead of using a measuring cup.
Regarding claim 10, Gillkey discloses that “upon reaching the requested predetermined volume, the dispenser may automatically cease the dispensation of the liquid” (¶ [0041]), via controller (130), when the target volume of water has been dispensed but is silent regarding
a flow meter for determining when the target volume of water has been dispensed.
Janardhanam discloses a water dispenser assembly with a flow meter that is configured to measure an amount of water passing therethrough. (abstract)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a flow meter, such as taught by Janardhanam, to control the dispensing of water based on the measured amount of water passing through the flow meter. (abstract)
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gillkey and Boyce as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Root, et al. (“Root”) (U.S. Pat. 11,505,444)
Regarding claim 11, Gillkey is silent in regards to a container sensing assembly configured to detect when the container is filled with the target volume of water.
Root discloses a refrigerator dispenser system with a container sensing assembly (112) connected to a controller (300), the sensor configured to determine a volume of contents in a container (111). (col. 7, lines 21-25)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate a sensing assembly to verify that the volume dispensed matches the target volume of water.
Claim(s) 15 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gillkey and Boyce as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Janardhanam, et al. (“Janardhanam”) (U.S. Pat. 7,475,555).
Regarding claim 15, Gillkey discloses that the controller is configured to add a target volume of water from an external device (1000) and auto-dispense the target volume of water assembly (¶ [0041], Fig. 6, 308.
Gillkey does not specify that the controller is configured to determine that a recipe is being performed.
Janardhanam discloses a water dispenser assembly with a controller (170) that when “a recipe calls for certain amount of water (e.g., 1/3 cup, 1/2 cup, 1 tablespoon, 2 teaspoons, 6 ounces, etc.), and instead of using a measuring cup, the user can use any size container (large enough to hold the desired amount) by entering the desired amount using interface 148, and receiving the desired amount via dispenser 146.” (col. 3, lines 69-64)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize Gillkey’s water dispenser assembly to accurately and automatically dispense water for use in recipes instead of using a measuring cup.
Regarding claim 20, Gillkey discloses that “upon reaching the requested predetermined volume, the dispenser may automatically cease the dispensation of the liquid” (¶ [0041]), via controller (130), when the target volume of water has been dispensed but is silent regarding
a flow meter for determining when the target volume of water has been dispensed.
Janardhanam discloses a water dispenser assembly with a flow meter that is configured to measure an amount of water passing therethrough. (abstract)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a flow meter, such as taught by Janardhanam, to control the dispensing of water based on the measured amount of water passing through the flow meter. (abstract)
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 MICHAEL J MELARAGNO whose telephone number is (571)270-7735. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri: 8 am - 5 pm +/- flex.
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.
/MJM/Examiner, Art Unit 3754
/PAUL R DURAND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3754 February 3, 2026
Prosecution Insights