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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 6 and 15-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on February 2, 2026.
Applicant's traversal is on the ground(s) that the species are not mutually exclusive and that there is no search burden. This is not found persuasive because the species do include mutually exclusive subject matter. Specifically, species I includes a dispensing tube from an additive receiver upstream of a fill cup, which neither species II nor III include. Species II includes a dispensing tube of an additive receiver that bypasses the fill cup, which neither species I nor III include. Species III includes an actuator selectively moving he dispensing tube an fill tube between a first and second position, of which neither species I or II include. Thus, each species includes mutually exclusive subject matter (i.e. subject matter which is present in one species but not the others). With respect to the argument that there is no search burden since they have overlapping subject matter, this is not found persuasive. Searching for the presently elected species did not result in any art that was applicable to either of the two non-elected species. Accordingly, if the inventions were to be examined concurrently, further search would be required. Such examination would require searches in B67D1/0043, 1/0049, 1/0051, 1/0079, 7/002, 2210/00068, A23G9/221, 9/28, 9/282, and 9/283 in order to find the features of the non-elected species which would result in an additional 18,017 documents to parse and evaluate. It is additionally pointed out that the examination burden is not limited exclusively to a prior art search but also includes that effort required to apply the art by making and discussing all appropriate grounds of rejection. Multiple inventions, such as those in the present application, normally require additional reference material and further discussion for each additional invention examined. Concurrent examination of multiple inventions would thus typically involve a significant burden even if all searches were coextensive. This examination burden is applicable in the instant application. For example, the prior art references applied to the elected claims would not apply as appropriate grounds of rejection for the withdrawn claims and would require different pieces of prior art applied to the independent claims, further search inquiries to acquire the art, and further consideration of the state of the art which would result in a serious search and examination burden if examined together.
In view of the three disclosed distinct inventions presented, it is determined that there is an examination and search burden for the non-elected patentably distinct invention. In this case, the restriction requirement was proper and prudent in order to conduct a more efficient and quality examination of the elected invention. Under the circumstances, a serious search burden does exist. In view of the claims presented, the restriction requirement between the species is proper.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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, 9-13, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JPH11211296 to Torii, hereinafter referred to as Torii, (see English language translation provided herewith), in view of EP4275509 to Favero et al., hereinafter referred to as Favero.
In reference to claims 1 and 7, Torii and Favero disclose the claimed invention including:
Torii discloses an ice maker appliance, comprising:
a fill tube (from 6 to 7 as seen in figure 1) in fluid communication with a water supply (31);
a mold body (1), the mold body positioned downstream of the fill tube (at 7); and
flowing a first volume of liquid into at least one of the mold cavities [0033];
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 [0033];
flowing a second volume of liquid into the at least one of the mold cavities after the first layer of the ice piece forms [0033]; 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 [0033]
Torri fails to disclose the mold body comprising two or more mold cavities nor the controller configured to perform the freezing method.
Favero teaches that in the art of producing flavored ice, that it is a known method to provide the mold body comprising two or more mold cavities (140). This is strong evidence that modifying Torri as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e., allow the formation of more than once ice body). 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 Torii by Favero such that the mold body comprised two or more mold cavities 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 forming more than one ice body.
With respect to the controller for performing the method, the examiner takes Official notice of the fact that using a controller to automate an otherwise manual method is extremely well known and capable of such instant and unquestionable demonstration as to defy dispute. Further, simply automating an otherwise manual activity is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, see MPEP 2144.04 (III). As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, to modify Torri such that the claimed method was performed by a controller in order to advantageously automate the method disclosed.
In reference to claim 2, Torii and Favero disclose the claimed invention including:
Torri discloses an additive cup (41) configured to receive a volume of liquid additive and a dispensing tube (from 41 to pump 5) extending between the additive cup (41) and the mold body (1), 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 [0033].
In reference to claim 9, Torii and Favero disclose the claimed invention including:
Torri discloses the first volume of liquid or the second volume of liquid comprises a liquid additive (orange syrup).
In reference to claim 10, Torii and Favero disclose the claimed invention including:
Torii as modified fails to disclose one of the first volume of liquid or the second volume of liquid consists of only the liquid additive. However, the only differences in the claimed invention and the apparatus described by Torii is a difference in the claimed concentration of the additive and water. Torii discloses that adjusting the concentration of the of the raw material would be within the level of ordinary skill in order to adjust the sweetness of the ice product. Further there is no evidence on the record that the particular water to additive concentration is critical. 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 Torii such that the concentration was adjusted such that the one of the first volume of liquid or the second volume of liquid consists of only the liquid additive in order to adjust the sweetness of the product and generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical, see MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A).
In reference to claim 11, Torii and Favero disclose the claimed invention including:
Torii discloses one of the first volume of liquid or the second volume of liquid comprises liquid water and the liquid additive, inferred from the disclosure of consumable liquid that freezes into ice at -5 to -30 ° C would contain at least some water.
In reference to claim 12, Torii and Favero disclose the claimed invention including:
Torii as modified fails to disclose the other of the first volume of liquid or the second volume of liquid consists of only liquid water. However, the only differences in the claimed invention and the apparatus described by Torii is a difference in the claimed concentration of the additive and water such that the additive concentration was 0%. Torii discloses that adjusting the concentration of the of the raw material would be within the level of ordinary skill in order to adjust the sweetness of the ice product. Further there is no evidence on the record that the particular water to additive concentration is critical. 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 Torii such that the concentration was adjusted such that the one of the first volume of liquid or the second volume of liquid consists of only water in order to adjust the sweetness of the product and generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical, see MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A).
In reference to claim 13, Torii and Favero disclose the claimed invention including:
When modifying Torii by Favero such that there were multiple cavities to form multiple ice bodies, the modification would necessarily include 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, in order to form multiple layered ice bodies as disclosed.
In reference to claim 18, Torii and Favero disclose the claimed invention including:
Torii as modified fails to disclose the first volume of liquid is a different volume than the second volume of liquid. However, there is no evidence of record that the differences in volumes is critical or produces anything more than predictable results as it appears that the apparatus of Torii would work equally well if the first and second volumes were any ratio as long as a layer of less sticky ice was formed on the outer portion to prevent sticking. Accordingly, it would have been a mere matter of obvious design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, to modify the first and second volumes of Torri so that the first volume of liquid is a different volume than the second volume of liquid in order to provide a predictable result within the ordinary level of one skilled in the art.
In reference to claim 19, Torii and Favero disclose the claimed invention including:
Torii as modified fails to disclose the first volume of liquid is a generally equal volume to the second volume of liquid. However, there is no evidence of record that the first volume of liquid being a generally equal volume to the second volume of liquid is critical or produces anything more than predictable results as it appears that the apparatus of Torii would work equally well if the first and second volumes were any ratio as long as a layer of less sticky ice was formed on the outer portion to prevent sticking. Accordingly, it would have been a mere matter of obvious design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, to modify the first and second volumes of Torri so that the first volume of liquid is a generally equal volume to the second volume of liquid in order to provide a predictable result within the ordinary level of one skilled in the art.
Claims 3, 5, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Torii and Favero as applied supra and in further view of CN111854248 to Mi, hereinafter referred to as Mi, (see English language translation provided herewith).
In reference to claim 3, Torii, Favero, and Mi disclose the claimed invention.
Torii as modified supra fails to disclose 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.
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 (see below for the examiner’s definition of 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. This is strong evidence that modifying Torii 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 Torri 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.
PNG
media_image1.png
594
1049
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In reference to claim 5, Torii, Favero, and Mi disclose the claimed invention.
Mi teaches the dispensing tube extends to an outlet upstream of the fill cup (see annotated reference above with respect to claim 3), 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 (see annotated reference above with respect to claim 3. Accordingly, when modifying Torii by Mi as applied in claim 3 supra, the limitations of claim 5 would be met by the combination.
In reference to claim 14, Torii, Favero, and Mi disclose the claimed invention.
Torii as modified supra fails to disclose the ice maker appliance further comprises a fill cup between the fill tube and the mold body, 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 the ice maker with a fill cup (220) between the fill tube and the mold body, the fill cup comprising two or more outlets (222), 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 (water) 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 (additive material) simultaneously through the two or more outlets of the fill cup into each mold cavity of the two or more mold cavities. This is strong evidence that modifying Torii as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e., fill the multiple ice molds individually). 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 Torii by Mi such that the ice maker appliance further comprises a fill cup between the fill tube and the mold body, 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, 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 supplying the water/additive to the ice making molds individually.
Claims 8 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Torii and Favero as applied supra and in further view of US2016/0216019 to Rugieri hereinafter referred to as Rugieri.
In reference to claim 8, Torii, Favero, and Rugieri disclose the claimed invention.
Torii as modified supra 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.
Rugieri 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 (carbonated water), 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 [0067-0068].
Rugieri teaches that this method creates an appetizing visual impression of the beverage [0004]. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, to Torri by Rugieri such that, the first volume of liquid consists of water only, the second volume of liquid consists of water only (carbonated water), 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 in order to form a visually appetizing beverage.
With respect to the second predetermined time differs from the first predetermined time, Rugieri teaches that the time that the water is freezing is a results effective variable in that it achieves a recognized result. In this case the result is desired thickness [0064]. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select an optimum predetermined times to be different to form desired layer thickness since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are discloses in the prior art, discovering optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, see MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A).
In reference to claim 20, Torii, Favero, and Rugieri disclose the claimed invention.
Torii as modified fails to disclose 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 Rugieri teaches that it is a known method to provide multiple layers of different ice [0069]. This is strong evidence that modifying Torii as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e., produce multiple layers of ice having differing concentrations). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, to Torii by Rugieri such that the method included 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, 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 several layers of distinct ice product.
Conclusion
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
/FRANTZ F JULES/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763