DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims:
Claims 1-18 are pending.
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 .
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 17 and 18 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 Claims 17 and 18:
The claims refer to the “filtration label”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation within the claims and it is not clear if the “filtration label” is equivalent to the “housing label” or not.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 4, 10 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mitchell (US 2012/0096892).
Regarding Claim 1:
Mitchell teaches the refrigerator appliance, comprising: a cabinet comprising a plurality of internal walls, the plurality of internal walls defining a chilled chamber (refrigerated compartment) (see para. 0009, fig. 2); a water filtration assembly comprising a filtration housing (outer casing 66) (see para. 0027)selectively mounted to at least one wall of the plurality of walls via a manifold (flange 84) (see para. 0026), the filtration housing comprising a translucent portion (see para. 0028); and a light source (illumination device 72) positioned on the water filtration assembly and in optical communication with the translucent portion of the filtration housing whereby the light source is positioned and configured to illuminate the translucent portion of the filtration housing (see para. 0028).
Regarding Claim 4:
Mitchell teaches the appliance of claim 1, wherein the translucent portion of the filtration housing comprises a portion of a side wall of the filtration housing (see para. 0028, Fig, 5).
Regarding Claim 10:
Mitchell teaches the a water filtration assembly comprising; a filtration housing (outer casing 66) (see para. 0027)selectively mounted to at least one wall of the plurality of walls via a manifold (flange 84) (see para. 0026), the filtration housing comprising a translucent portion (see para. 0028); and a light source (illumination device 72) positioned on the water filtration assembly and in optical communication with the translucent portion of the filtration housing whereby the light source is positioned and configured to illuminate the translucent portion of the filtration housing (see para. 0028).
Regarding Claim 4:
Mitchell teaches the water filtration assembly of claim 10, wherein the translucent portion of the filtration housing comprises a portion of a side wall of the filtration housing (see para. 0028, Fig, 5).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchell (US 2012/0096892) as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Ruffin (US 2022/0220004).
Regarding Claim 2:
Mitchell teaches the appliance of claim 1. Mitchell further teaches that different types of filters can be used and different portions of the outer casing can be translucent (see para. 0028).
Mitchell does not teach wherein the translucent portion of the filtration housing comprises an end cap of the filtration housing.
Ruffin teaches a filtration housing comprising a translucent portion (window 260) wherein the translucent portion of the filtration housing comprises an end cap (base of housing, plastic end cap 340) of the filtration housing (see para. 0033 0038).
Mitchell and Ruffin are analogous inventions in the art of water filters. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to replace the water filter of Mitchell with the water filter of Ruffin, having a translucent portion on an end cap, because it is the simple substitution of one known water filter with another known water filter, obviously resulting in the ability to visually inspect the filter with an expectation of success. It would have further been obvious to one skilled in the art make an end cap of Mitchell translucent, as disclosed by Ruffin, because Mitchell is open to different locations on the casing being translucent and through routine experimentation one skilled in the art would have found appropriate translucent locations to try. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.). Choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation for success, is likely to be obvious to a person if ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, E.).
Regarding Claim 11:
Mitchell teaches the water filtration assembly of claim 10. Mitchell further teaches that different types of filters can be used and different portions of the outer casing can be translucent (see para. 0028).
Mitchell does not teach wherein the translucent portion of the filtration housing comprises an end cap of the filtration housing.
Ruffin teaches a filtration housing comprising a translucent portion (window 260) wherein the translucent portion of the filtration housing comprises an end cap (base of housing, plastic end cap 340) of the filtration housing (see para. 0033 0038).
Mitchell and Ruffin are analogous inventions in the art of water filters. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to replace the water filter of Mitchell with the water filter of Ruffin, having a translucent portion on an end cap, because it is the simple substitution of one known water filter with another known water filter, obviously resulting in the ability to visually inspect the filter with an expectation of success. It would have further been obvious to one skilled in the art make an end cap of Mitchell translucent, as disclosed by Ruffin, because Mitchell is open to different locations on the casing being translucent and through routine experimentation one skilled in the art would have found appropriate translucent locations to try. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.). Choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation for success, is likely to be obvious to a person if ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.
__,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, E.).
Claim(s) 3 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchell (US 2012/0096892) and Ruffin (US 2022/0220004) as applied to claims 2 and 11 above, and further in view of Suzuki et al (WO 2019163126, English machine translation provided).
Regarding Claim 3:
Mitchell, as modified, teaches the appliance of claim 2.
The combination does not teach wherein the light source comprises a plurality of LEDs arranged circumferentially around the filtration housing.
Suzuki teaches a light source for a refrigerator comprises a plurality of LEDs (see pg. 4, second paragraph, fig. 4).
Mitchell, as modified, and Suzuki are analogous inventions in the art of refrigerator appliances. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to replace the light source of Mitchell with a light source comprising a plurality of LEDs, as disclosed by Suzuki because it is the simple substitution of one light source with another light source, obviously resulting in illumination of the filter with an expectation of success. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious
when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.). It would have further been obvious to arrange the plurality of LEDs circumferentially around the housing because it is a simple rearrangement of parts without any unexpected results. The mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 12:
Mitchell, as modified, teaches the water filtration assembly of claim 11.
The combination does not teach wherein the light source comprises a plurality of LEDs arranged circumferentially around the filtration housing.
Suzuki teaches a light source for a refrigerator comprises a plurality of LEDs (see pg. 4, second paragraph, fig. 4).
Mitchell, as modified, and Suzuki are analogous inventions in the art of refrigerator appliances. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to replace the light source of Mitchell with a light source comprising a plurality of LEDs, as disclosed by Suzuki because it is the simple substitution of one light source with another light source, obviously resulting in illumination of the filter with an expectation of success. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious
when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.). It would have further been obvious to arrange the plurality of LEDs circumferentially around the housing because it is a simple rearrangement of parts without any unexpected results. The mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Claim(s) 5 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchell (US 2012/0096892) as applied to claims 4 and 13 above, and further in view of Suzuki et al (WO 2019163126, English machine translation provided).
Regarding Claim 5:
Mitchell teaches the appliance of claim 4.
Mitchell does not teach wherein the light source comprises a plurality of LEDs arranged axially along the filtration housing.
Suzuki teaches a light source for a refrigerator comprises a plurality of LEDs (see pg. 4, second paragraph, fig. 4).
Mitchel, as modified, and Suzuki are analogous inventions in the art of refrigerator appliances. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to replace the light source of Mitchell with a light source comprising a plurality of LEDs, as disclosed by Suzuki because it is the simple substitution of one light source with another light source, obviously resulting in illumination of the filter with an expectation of success. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious
when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.). It would have further been obvious to arrange the LEDs axially along the filtration housing because it is a simple rearrangement of parts without any unexpected results. The mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 14:
Mitchell teaches the water filtration assembly of claim 13.
Mitchell does not teach wherein the light source comprises a plurality of LEDs arranged axially along the filtration housing.
Suzuki teaches a light source for a refrigerator comprises a plurality of LEDs (see pg. 4, second paragraph, fig. 4).
Mitchel, as modified, and Suzuki are analogous inventions in the art of refrigerator appliances. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to replace the light source of Mitchell with a light source comprising a plurality of LEDs, as disclosed by Suzuki because it is the simple substitution of one light source with another light source, obviously resulting in illumination of the filter with an expectation of success. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious
when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.). It would have further been obvious to arrange the LEDs axially along the filtration housing because it is a simple rearrangement of parts without any unexpected results. The mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Claim(s) 6, 7, 15, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchell (US 2012/0096892) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Chernov et al (USPN 10,926,206).
Regarding Claim 6:
Mitchell teaches the appliance of claim 1.
Mitchell does not teach the water filtration assembly further comprises a housing label disposed on the filtration housing, the light source positioned on an internal side of the housing label.
Chernov teaches a water filtration assembly comprising a housing label disposed on the filtration housing (see col. 2 lines 1-3). Chernov further teaches electrical components on the internal side of the housing label (see col. 2 lines 1-11).
Mitchell and Chernov are analogous inventions in the art of refrigerator filters. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the label of Chernov to the filter or Mitchell because it is the simple addition of a known feature to a known device, obviously resulting in the ability to indemnify the filter, with an expectation of success. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.
__,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.). It would have further been obvious to place the light source of Michell on the internal size of the label because it is a simple rearrangement of parts, obviously resulting in the light source being in fixed proximity to the filter, with an expectation of success, and because Chernov teaches that the label can hold electrical components (see Col. 2 lines 1-11). The mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 7:
Mitchell, as modified, teaches the appliance of claim 6, wherein the water filtration assembly further comprises at least one fluid inlet port (water inlet 62) and at least one fluid outlet port (water outlet 64) secured to the manifold for receiving fluid from a fluid source (see Mitchell para. 0026) and an electrical connection electrically coupling the water filtration assembly to a power source, wherein the electrical connection is separate and spaced apart from the manifold (electronics and connections away from the refrigerated compartment) (see Mitchell para. 0029), the electrical connection comprising at least one first electrical contact located on the filtration housing (illumination device is attached to wall housing therefore there is inherently an electrical contact) and at least one second electrical contact located on the appliance wall(behind outer casing), wherein, when the at least one first electrical contact is contacting the at least one second electrical contact, power is provided to the light source positioned on the water filtration assembly (although not explicitly stated the light source inherently requires power for the light to function) (see Mitchell para. 0029).
Regarding Claim 16:
Mitchell teaches the water filtration assembly of claim 10.
Mitchell does not teach the water filtration assembly further comprises a housing label disposed on the filtration housing, the light source positioned on an internal side of the housing label.
Chernov teaches a water filtration assembly comprising a housing label disposed on the filtration housing (see col. 2 lines 1-3). Chernov further teaches electrical components on the internal side of the housing label (see col. 2 lines 1-11).
Mitchell and Chernov are analogous inventions in the art of refrigerator filters. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the label of Chernov to the filter or Mitchell because it is the simple addition of a known feature to a known device, obviously resulting in the ability to indemnify the filter, with an expectation of success. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.
__,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.). It would have further been obvious to place the light source of Michell on the internal size of the label because it is a simple rearrangement of parts, obviously resulting in the light source being in fixed proximity to the filter, with an expectation of success, and because Chernov teaches that the label can hold electrical components (see Col. 2 lines 1-11). The mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 16:
Mitchell, as modified, teaches the water filtration assembly of claim 15, wherein the water filtration assembly further comprises at least one fluid inlet port (water inlet 62) and at least one fluid outlet port (water outlet 64) secured to the manifold for receiving fluid from a fluid source (see Mitchell para. 0026) and an electrical connection electrically coupling the water filtration assembly to a power source, wherein the electrical connection is separate and spaced apart from the manifold (electronics and connections away from the refrigerated compartment) (see Mitchell para. 0029), the electrical connection comprising at least one first electrical contact located on the filtration housing (illumination device is attached to wall housing therefore there is inherently an electrical contact) and at least one second electrical contact located on the appliance wall(behind outer casing), wherein, when the at least one first electrical contact is contacting the at least one second electrical contact, power is provided to the light source positioned on the water filtration assembly (although not explicitly stated the light source inherently requires power for the light to function) (see Mitchell para. 0029).
Claim(s) 8, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchell (US 2012/0096892) and Chernov et al (USPN 10,926,206) as applied to claims 6 and 15 above, and further in view of Ruffin (US 2022/0220004) and Suzuki et al (WO 2019163126, English machine translation provided).
Regarding Claim 8
Mitchell, as modified, teaches the appliance of claim 6. Mitchell further teaches that different types of filters can be used and different portions of the outer casing can be translucent (see para. 0028).
Mitchell does not teach wherein the translucent portion of the filtration housing comprises an end cap of the filtration housing or wherein the light source comprises a plurality of LEDs arranged circumferentially around the housing label proximate to an end of the filtration label.
Ruffin teaches a filtration housing comprising a translucent portion (window 260) wherein the translucent portion of the filtration housing comprises an end cap (base of housing, plastic end cap 340) of the filtration housing (see para. 0033 0038).
Mitchell and Ruffin are analogous inventions in the art of water filters. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to replace the water filter of Mitchell with the water filter of Ruffin, having a translucent portion on an end cap, because it is the simple substitution of one known water filter with another known water filter, obviously resulting in the ability to visually inspect the filter with an expectation of success. It would have further been obvious to one skilled in the art make an end cap of Mitchell translucent, as disclosed by Ruffin, because Mitchell is open to different locations on the casing being translucent and through routine experimentation one skilled in the art would have found appropriate translucent locations to try. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.). Choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation for success, is likely to be obvious to a person if ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, E.).
Suzuki teaches a light source for a refrigerator comprises a plurality of LEDs (see pg. 4, second paragraph, fig. 4).
Mitchel, as modified, and Suzuki are analogous inventions in the art of refrigerator appliances. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to replace the light source of Mitchell with a light source comprising a plurality of LEDs, as disclosed by Suzuki because it is the simple substitution of one light source with another light source, obviously resulting in illumination of the filter with an expectation of success. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious
when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.). It would have further been obvious to arrange the plurality of LEDs circumferentially around the housing label proximate to the end of filtration label because it is a simple rearrangement of parts without any unexpected results. The mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 17:
Mitchell, as modified, teaches the filtration assembly of claim 15. Mitchell further teaches that different types of filters can be used and different portions of the outer casing can be translucent (see para. 0028).
Mitchell does not teach wherein the translucent portion of the filtration housing comprises an end cap of the filtration housing or wherein the light source comprises a plurality of LEDs arranged circumferentially around the housing label proximate to an end of the filtration label.
Ruffin teaches a filtration housing comprising a translucent portion (window 260) wherein the translucent portion of the filtration housing comprises an end cap (base of housing, plastic end cap 340) of the filtration housing (see para. 0033 0038).
Mitchell and Ruffin are analogous inventions in the art of water filters. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to replace the water filter of Mitchell with the water filter of Ruffin, having a translucent portion on an end cap, because it is the simple substitution of one known water filter with another known water filter, obviously resulting in the ability to visually inspect the filter with an expectation of success. It would have further been obvious to one skilled in the art make an end cap of Mitchell translucent, as disclosed by Ruffin, because Mitchell is open to different locations on the casing being translucent and through routine experimentation one skilled in the art would have found appropriate translucent locations to try. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.). Choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation for success, is likely to be obvious to a person if ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, E.).
Suzuki teaches a light source for a refrigerator comprises a plurality of LEDs (see pg. 4, second paragraph, fig. 4).
Mitchel, as modified, and Suzuki are analogous inventions in the art of refrigerator appliances. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to replace the light source of Mitchell with a light source comprising a plurality of LEDs, as disclosed by Suzuki because it is the simple substitution of one light source with another light source, obviously resulting in illumination of the filter with an expectation of success. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious
when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.). It would have further been obvious to arrange the plurality of LEDs circumferentially around the housing label proximate to the end of filtration label because it is a simple rearrangement of parts without any unexpected results. The mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Claim(s) 9 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchell (US 2012/0096892) and Chernov et al (USPN 10,926,206) as applied to claims 6 and 15 above, and further in view of Suzuki et al (WO 2019163126, English machine translation provided).
Regarding Claim 9:
Mitchell, as modified, teaches the appliance of claim 6, wherein the translucent portion of the filtration housing comprises a portion of a side wall of the filtration housing (see Mitchell para. 0028, Fig, 5).
Mitchell, as previously modified, does not teach wherein the light source comprises a plurality of LEDs arranged axially along the housing label proximate to an edge of the filtration label.
Suzuki teaches a light source for a refrigerator comprises a plurality of LEDs (see pg. 4, second paragraph, fig. 4).
Mitchel, as modified, and Suzuki are analogous inventions in the art of refrigerator appliances. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to replace the light source of Mitchell with a light source comprising a plurality of LEDs, as disclosed by Suzuki because it is the simple substitution of one light source with another light source, obviously resulting in illumination of the filter with an expectation of success. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious
when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.). It would have further been obvious to arrange the LEDs axially along the housing label proximate an edge of the filtration label because it is a simple rearrangement of parts without any unexpected results. The mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 18:
Mitchell, as modified, teaches the filtration assembly of claim 15, wherein the translucent portion of the filtration housing comprises a portion of a side wall of the filtration housing (see Mitchell para. 0028, Fig, 5).
Mitchell, as previously modified, does not teach wherein the light source comprises a plurality of LEDs arranged axially along the housing label proximate to an edge of the filtration label.
Suzuki teaches a light source for a refrigerator comprises a plurality of LEDs (see pg. 4, second paragraph, fig. 4).
Mitchel, as modified, and Suzuki are analogous inventions in the art of refrigerator appliances. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to replace the light source of Mitchell with a light source comprising a plurality of LEDs, as disclosed by Suzuki because it is the simple substitution of one light source with another light source, obviously resulting in illumination of the filter with an expectation of success. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious
when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.). It would have further been obvious to arrange the LEDs axially along the housing label proximate an edge of the filtration label because it is a simple rearrangement of parts without any unexpected results. The mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLAIRE A NORRIS whose telephone number is (571)272-5133. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-5 F: 8-12.
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, Ramdhanie Bobby can be reached at 571-270-3240. 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.
/CLAIRE A NORRIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779 6/4/2026
Prosecution Insights