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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: For continuity of the claims, “the mold cavity” in lines 9-10 should be amended to “the at least one mold cavity” for continuity of the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: For continuity of the claims, “the mold cavity” in lines 8-9 should be amended to “the at least one of the mold cavities” for continuity of the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1, 2, 7, 9-11, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6,513,337 to Astvatsatrian et al., hereinafter referred to as Asvatsatrian, in view of How to Make Striped Ice Cubes, the Prettiest Summer Beverage Accessory by Christina Perez hereinafter referred to as Perez.
In reference to claims 1 and 7, Astvatsatrian as modified by Perez discloses the claimed invention.
Astvatsatrian discloses an ice maker appliance (see figure 1), comprising:
a fill tube (26) in fluid communication with a water supply (20);
a mold body (42) comprising two or more mold cavities (inferred from the description of mold trays producing ice cubes), the mold body (42) positioned downstream of the fill tube (26), see figure 1; and
a controller (18) configured to control injection of dies and water into a mixing chamber and ice mold cavities.
Astvatsatrian fails to disclose flowing a stream of a first volume of liquid into at least one of the mold cavities; retaining the first volume of liquid in the at least one of the mold cavities for a first predetermined time after flowing the first volume of liquid into the at least one of the mold cavities, whereby a first layer of an ice piece forms from the first volume of liquid in the mold cavity; flowing a stream of a second volume of liquid into the at least one of the mold cavities after the first layer of the ice piece forms; and retaining the second volume of liquid in the at least one of the mold cavities for a second predetermined time to form a second layer of the ice piece, whereby the second layer of the ice piece is distinct from the first layer of the ice piece, whereby the second layer of ice abuts the first layer of ice along an interface between the first layer and the second layer, wherein the interface consists of a single flat plane.
Perez discloses that it is a known method to produce stripped ice including an ice maker including a mold body (ice cube mold) comprising at least one ice cavity, flowing a stream of a first volume of liquid (Pressed Juicery Pink lemonade) into the ice cavity, (step 1 of instructions for making the Pink Lemonade– and Blue Lemonade–Striped Ice Cube); retaining the first volume of liquid in the mold cavity for a first predetermined time after flowing the first volume of liquid into the mold cavity, whereby a first layer of an ice piece forms from the first volume of liquid in the mold cavity (step 2 of instructions for making the Pink Lemonade– and Blue Lemonade–Striped Ice Cube); flowing a stream of a second volume of liquid (Pressed Juicery blue lemonade) into the mold cavity after the first layer of the ice piece forms (step 3 of instructions for making the Pink Lemonade– and Blue Lemonade–Striped Ice Cube); and retaining the second volume of liquid in the at least one of the mold cavities for a second predetermined time to form a second layer of the ice piece, (step 4 of instructions for making the Pink Lemonade– and Blue Lemonade–Striped Ice Cube); whereby the second layer of the ice piece is distinct from the first layer of the ice piece, whereby the second layer of ice abuts the first layer of ice along an interface between the first layer and the second layer, wherein the interface consists of a single flat plane (as seen in the figure of the alternating blue and pink layers). This is strong evidence that modifying Astvatsatrian as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e., produce the prettiest summer beverage accessory). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, to modify Astvatsatrian by Perez such that the controller was configured to flow a stream of a first volume of liquid into at least one of the mold cavities; retain the first volume of liquid in the at least one of the mold cavities for a first predetermined time after flowing the first volume of liquid into the at least one of the mold cavities, whereby a first layer of an ice piece forms from the first volume of liquid in the mold cavity; flowing a stream of a second volume of liquid into the at least one of the mold cavities after the first layer of the ice piece forms; and retaining the second volume of liquid in the at least one of the mold cavities for a second predetermined time to form a second layer of the ice piece, whereby the second layer of the ice piece is distinct from the first layer of the ice piece, whereby the second layer of ice abuts the first layer of ice along an interface between the first layer and the second layer, wherein the interface consists of a single flat plane, since all claimed elements were known in the art, and one having ordinary skill in the art could have modified the prior art as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded a predictable result of producing attractive striped ice cubes in an automatic fashion without having to manually pour different layers into the mold.
In reference to claim 2, Astvatsatrian as modified by Perez discloses the claimed invention.
Astvatsatrian discloses an additive cup (12) configured to receive a volume of liquid additive and a dispensing tube (as illustrated in figure 1 extending from the bottom of 12) extending between the additive cup (12) and the mold body (42, albeit indirectly), wherein one of the first volume of liquid or the second volume of liquid comprises liquid additive from the additive cup via the dispensing tube. Accordingly, when modifying Astvatsatrian by Perez as applied in claim 1 supra, the limitations of claim 2 would be met by the combination.
In reference to claim 9, Astvatsatrian as modified by Perez discloses the claimed invention.
Astvatsatrian discloses one of the first volume of liquid or the second volume of liquid comprises a liquid additive (dye).
In reference to claim 10, Astvatsatrian as modified by Perez discloses the claimed invention.
Perez discloses the one of the first volume of liquid or the second volume of liquid consists of only the liquid additive (pink or blue lemonade). Accordingly, when modifying Astvatsatrian by Perez as applied in 7 supra, it would be obvious to include a volume of liquid that consists of only the pink or blue lemonade, in order to form an attractive ice cube with delicious flavoring.
In reference to claim 11, Astvatsatrian as modified by Perez discloses the claimed invention.
Astvatsatrian discloses the one of the first volume of liquid or the second volume of liquid comprises liquid water and the liquid additive (as mixed in 14).
In reference to claim 19, Astvatsatrian as modified by Perez discloses the claimed invention.
Perez discloses the first volume of liquid is a generally equal volume to the second volume of liquid (see steps 1 and 3 where 1oz of each beverage is added). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, to modify Astvatsatrian by Perez such that, the first volume of liquid is a generally equal volume to the second volume of liquid in order to form an ice cube with a uniform appearance.
Claims 3, 5, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asvatsatrian, and Perez, as applied to claim 2 and 7 supra, and in further vie of CN111854248 to Mi, hereinafter referred to as Mi, (see English language translation provided with the Non-Final Office Action mailed February 24, 2026).
In reference to claim 3, Astvatsatrian as modified by Perez and Mi discloses the claimed invention.
Astvatastrian discloses a fill cup (14) between the fill tube and the mold body (42), but fails to disclose the fill cup comprising two or more outlets, each outlet of the two or more outlets positioned and configured to direct a flow of liquid to only one of the two or more mold cavities, and each mold cavity of the two or more mold cavities positioned and configured to receive the flow of liquid from only one of the two or more outlets.
Mi teaches that in the art of material injecting ice makers that it is a known method to provide a fill cup (220) between the fill tube and the mold body, the fill cup comprising two or more outlets (222), each outlet of the two or more outlets positioned and configured to direct a flow of liquid to only one of the two or more mold cavities, and each mold cavity of the two or more mold cavities positioned and configured to receive the flow of liquid from only one of the two or more outlets, see figure 1 and annotated reference with respect to claim 3 on page 10 of the non-final Office action. This is strong evidence that modifying Astvatastrian as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e., provide a flow of fluid to each cavity of the ice mold). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, to modify Asvatsatrian by Mi such that the ice maker included a fill cup between the fill tube and the mold body, the fill cup comprising two or more outlets, each outlet of the two or more outlets positioned and configured to direct a flow of liquid to only one of the two or more mold cavities, and each mold cavity of the two or more mold cavities positioned and configured to receive the flow of liquid from only one of the two or more outlets, since all claimed elements were known in the art, and one having ordinary skill in the art could have modified the prior art as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded a predictable result of providing water/additive to each individual ice mold.
In reference to claim 5, Astvatsatrian as modified by Perez and Mi discloses the claimed invention.
Mi teaches the dispensing tube extends to an outlet upstream of the fill cup (see annotated reference with respect to claim 3 on page 10 of the non-final Office action), whereby the fill cup is positioned and configured to receive a flow of liquid additive from the additive cup (210) via the dispensing tube and to receive a flow of liquid water from the fill tube. Accordingly, when modifying Astvatsatrian by Mi as applied in claim 3 supra, the limitations of claim 5 would be met by the combination.
In reference to claim 13, Astvatsatrian as modified by Perez and Mi discloses the claimed invention.
Astvatsatrian fails to disclose flowing the first volume of liquid into at least one of the mold cavities comprises flowing the first volume of liquid simultaneously into each mold cavity of the two or more mold cavities, and wherein flowing the second volume of liquid into the at least one of the mold cavities after the first layer of ice forms comprises flowing the second volume of liquid simultaneously into each mold cavity of the two or more mold cavities. However, Mi teaches that it is a known technique to flow a volume of liquid to each mold cavity of a plurality of mold cavities simultaneously. This is strong evidence that modifying Astvatsatrain as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e., simultaneously fill the ice mold cavities). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, to modify Astvatsatrian by Mi such that, the first volume of liquid into at least one of the mold cavities comprises flowing the first volume of liquid simultaneously into each mold cavity of the two or more mold cavities, and wherein flowing the second volume of liquid into the at least one of the mold cavities after the first layer of ice forms comprises flowing the second volume of liquid simultaneously into each mold cavity of the two or more mold cavities, since the technique of simultaneously filling a plurality of molds is known in the art and would produce nothing but what was predictable to one skilled in the art to fill the molds simultaneously.
In reference to claim 14, Astvatsatrian as modified by Perez and Mi discloses the claimed invention.
Astvatastrian discloses a fill cup (14) between the fill tube and the mold body (42), but fails to disclose the fill cup comprising two or more outlets, wherein flowing the first volume of liquid simultaneously into each mold cavity of the two or more mold cavities comprises flowing at least a portion of the first volume of liquid simultaneously through the two or more outlets of the fill cup into each mold cavity of the two or more mold cavities, and wherein flowing the second volume of liquid simultaneously into each mold cavity of the two or more mold cavities comprises flowing at least a portion of the second volume of liquid simultaneously through the two or more outlets of the fill cup into each mold cavity of the two or more mold cavities.
Mi teaches that in the art of material injecting ice makers that it is a known method to provide a fill cup (220) between the fill tube and the mold body, the fill cup comprising two or more outlets (222), each outlet of the two or more outlets positioned and configured to direct a flow of liquid to only one of the two or more mold cavities, and each mold cavity of the two or more mold cavities positioned and configured to receive the flow of liquid from only one of the two or more outlets, see figure 1 and annotated reference with respect to claim 3 on page 10 of the non-final Office action. Thus when modifying Astvatsatrian by Perez and Mi, the combination would result in the various layers of ice being provided to each individual ice cavity as claimed in each step of layering.
Claims 8, 12, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asvatsatrian, and Perez, as applied to claim 7 supra, and in further view of TWM617276 to Zheng, hereinafter referred to as Zheng, (see English language translation provided herewith).
In reference to claim 8, Astvatsatrian as modified by Perez and Zheng discloses the claimed invention.
Astvatsatrian as modified fails to disclose the first volume of liquid consists of water only, the second volume of liquid consists of water only, and wherein the second predetermined time differs from the first predetermined time whereby one of the first layer or the second layer is a layer of clear ice and the other of the first layer or the second layer is non-clear ice, whereby the second layer of the ice piece is visually distinct from the first layer of the ice piece.
Zheng teaches that in the art of ice making that it is a known method to provide the first volume of liquid consists of water only, the second volume of liquid consists of water only whereby one of the first layer or the second layer is a layer of clear ice and the other of the first layer or the second layer is non-clear ice, whereby the second layer of the ice piece is visually distinct from the first layer of the ice piece, see underlined portion of page 3 of the English language translation. This is strong evidence that modifying Astvatsatrian as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e., visually stunning ice cube). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, to modify Astvatsatrian by Zheng such that, the first volume of liquid consists of water only, the second volume of liquid consists of water only, and wherein the second predetermined time differs from the first predetermined time whereby one of the first layer or the second layer is a layer of clear ice and the other of the first layer or the second layer is non-clear ice, whereby the second layer of the ice piece is visually distinct from the first layer of the ice piece, since all claimed elements were known in the art, and one having ordinary skill in the art could have modified the prior art as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded a predictable result of producing a visually appealing ice cube.
In reference to claim 12, Astvatsatrian as modified by Perez and Zheng discloses the claimed invention.
Astvatsatrian fails to disclose the other of the first volume of liquid or the second volume of liquid consists of only liquid water.
However Zheng teaches that in the art of forming layered ice cubes, forming one layer of water only, and forming another with a dye color is known, see underlined portion of page 5 of the English language translation. This is strong evidence that modifying Astvatsatrian as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e., produce an ice cube where the overall appearance is pleasing to the eye). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, to modify Astvatsatrian by Zheng such that, the other of the first volume of liquid or the second volume of liquid consists of only liquid water, in order to form an ice cube where the overall appearance is pleasing to the eye.
In reference to claim 18, Astvatsatrian as modified by Perez and Zheng discloses the claimed invention.
Astvatsatrian as modified supra fails to disclose the first volume of liquid is a different volume than the second volume of liquid.
Zheng teaches that in the art of forming layered ice pieces that it is a known method to provide the first volume of liquid is a different volume than the second volume of liquid (such that the different layers have a different thickness, each layer would necessarily include different volumes), see underlined portion of page 4 of the English language translation. This is strong evidence that modifying Astvatsatrian as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e., produce varying melting experience). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, to modify Astvatsatrian by Zheng such that, the first volume of liquid is a different volume than the second volume of liquid, since all claimed elements were known in the art, and one having ordinary skill in the art could have modified the prior art as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded a predictable result of producing a varying melting experience
In reference to claim 20, Astvatsatrian as modified by Perez and Zheng discloses the claimed invention.
Astvatsatrian fails to disclose flowing a third volume of liquid into the at least one of the mold cavities after the second layer of the ice piece forms, and retaining the third volume of liquid in the at least one of the mold cavities for a third predetermined time to form a third layer of the ice piece, whereby the third layer of the ice piece is distinct from at least one of the first layer and the second layer of the ice piece.
However Zheng teaches flowing a third volume of liquid into the at least one of the mold cavities after the second layer of the ice piece forms, and retaining the third volume of liquid in the at least one of the mold cavities for a third predetermined time to form a third layer of the ice piece, whereby the third layer of the ice piece is distinct from at least one of the first layer and the second layer of the ice piece, see figure 3 and underlined portion of page 3 the English language translation. This is strong evidence that modifying (the base reference) as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e., visually stunning ice cube). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, to modify Astvatsatrian by Zheng such that, a third volume of liquid is flowed into the at least one of the mold cavities after the second layer of the ice piece forms, and retaining the third volume of liquid in the at least one of the mold cavities for a third predetermined time to form a third layer of the ice piece, whereby the third layer of the ice piece is distinct from at least one of the first layer and the second layer of the ice piece, since all claimed elements were known in the art, and one having ordinary skill in the art could have modified the prior art as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded a predictable result of creating a visually stunning ice cube.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 CASSEY D BAUER whose telephone number is (571)270-7113. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs: 10AM-8PM (ET).
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, Frantz Jules can be reached at 571-272-6681. 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.
/CASSEY D BAUER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights