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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/08/2024 was filed after the filing date of the application on 04/26/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“heating element” in claims 1, 4, 8-9, 12-13, 18, and 20.
“first heating element” in claims 8 and 13.
“second heating element” in claims 8 and 13.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL. —The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4, 8-9, 12-13, 18, and 20 recite the limitations “heating element”. The term “heating element” invokes a claim interpretation governed under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph), which requires a review of the specification to determine the appropriate structure, material or act to carry out the claimed limitation. However, the specification as originally filed, fails to describe a corresponding structure or technique by which the heating function is accomplished. A mere restatement of the function does not suffice as a statement of structure. Thus, it does not appear that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention because the specification does not disclose a structure which is capable of performing the disclosed heating function. When a description of the structure, material or act is not provided or is not sufficient to perform the entire claimed function, or no association between the structure and the claimed function can be found in the specification, the written description fails to clearly define the boundaries of the claims.
Claims 8 and 13 recite the limitations “first heating element”. The term “first heating element” invokes a claim interpretation governed under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph), which requires a review of the specification to determine the appropriate structure, material or act to carry out the claimed limitation. However, the specification as originally filed, fails to describe a corresponding structure or technique by which the heating function is accomplished. A mere restatement of the function does not suffice as a statement of structure. Thus, it does not appear that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention because the specification does not disclose a structure which is capable of performing the disclosed heating function. When a description of the structure, material or act is not provided or is not sufficient to perform the entire claimed function, or no association between the structure and the claimed function can be found in the specification, the written description fails to clearly define the boundaries of the claims.
Claims 8 and 13 recite the limitations “second heating element”. The term “second heating element” invokes a claim interpretation governed under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph), which requires a review of the specification to determine the appropriate structure, material or act to carry out the claimed limitation. However, the specification as originally filed, fails to describe a corresponding structure or technique by which the heating function is accomplished. A mere restatement of the function does not suffice as a statement of structure. Thus, it does not appear that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention because the specification does not disclose a structure which is capable of performing the disclosed heating function. When a description of the structure, material or act is not provided or is not sufficient to perform the entire claimed function, or no association between the structure and the claimed function can be found in the specification, the written description fails to clearly define the boundaries of the claims.
Claims 2-3, 5-7, 10-11, 14-17, and 19 are also objected due to dependency.
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 1-20 are 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "liquid" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For examination purposes, the phrase “a housing defining an ice-making chamber to receive liquid” will be interpreted as -- a housing defining an ice-making chamber to receive a liquid --
Claim 9 recites the limitation "liquid" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For examination purposes, the phrase “a housing defining an ice-making chamber to receive liquid” will be interpreted as -- a housing defining an ice-making chamber to receive a liquid --
Claim 13 recites the limitation "heating element" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For examination purposes, the phrase “wherein heating element is a first heating element” will be interpreted as -- wherein the heating element is a first heating element --
Claim 18 recites the limitation "liquid" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For examination purposes, the phrase “receiving, at a housing defining an ice-making chamber, liquid” will be interpreted as -- receiving, at a housing defining an ice-making chamber, a liquid --
Claim limitation “heating element” in claims 1, 4, 8-9, 12-13, 18, 20, “first heating element” in claims 8, 13, and “second heating element” in claims 8, 13 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 2-3, 5-7, 10-11, 14-17, and 19 are also objected due to dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6, 9-11, 15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchell et al. (US 20170234594 A1, herein after referred to as Mitchell) and Dai et al. (CN114719479A, herein after referred to as Dai).
Regarding claim 1, Mitchell teaches an ice-making system (ice making assembly 160 Fig. 3) for a household appliance (refrigerator appliance 100 Fig. 1), comprising: a housing (casing 170 Fig. 4) defining an ice-making chamber (chamber 173 Fig. 4) to receive a liquid (paragraph [0030]); an extrusion head (extruder 175 and extruder die 220 Figs. 4-5) coupled with the housing (Fig. 5), the extrusion head comprising a plurality of openings (extruding openings 222 Fig. 5) configured to receive ice (paragraph [0026]); and a heating element (heater 180 Fig. 3) positioned proximate and external to the extrusion head (Figs. 3-4).
Mitchell teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach “the heating element to heat the extrusion head at a temperature that is based on a preselected ice hardness level”.
However, Dai teaches a heating element (the disclosed “heating module” in paragraph [9] corresponds to the heating element of Mitchell) to heat an extrusion head (the disclosed “ice outlet” in paragraph [9] corresponds to the extrusion head of Mitchell) at a temperature (corresponds to the temperature associated with the disclosed “preset hardness” in paragraph [9]) that is based on a preselected ice hardness level (disclosed “preset hardness” of the ice cubes in paragraph [9]) to adjust the hardness of the generated ice cubes according to user needs (paragraph [7]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of Mitchell to include “the heating element to heat the extrusion head at a temperature that is based on a preselected ice hardness level” in view of the teachings of Dai to adjust the hardness of the generated ice cubes according to user needs.
Regarding claim 9, Mitchell teaches a household appliance (refrigerator appliance 100 Fig. 1) comprising: an ice storage compartment (ice storage bin 164 Fig. 3); an ice-making system (ice making assembly 160 Fig. 3), the ice-making system comprising: a housing (casing 170 Fig. 4) defining an ice-making chamber (chamber 173 Fig. 4) to receive a liquid (paragraph [0030]); an extrusion head (extruder 175 and extruder die 220 Figs. 4-5) coupled with the housing (Fig. 5), the extrusion head comprising a plurality of openings (extruding openings 222 Fig. 5) configured to receive ice (paragraph [0026]); and a heating element (heater 180 Fig. 3) configured to prevent a system failure (understood to be “when ice prevents or hinders rotation” of the auger as disclosed in paragraph [0027]) associated with the ice-making system (paragraph [0027]).
Mitchell teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach “the heating element configured to heat the housing at a temperature that is based on a preselected ice hardness level”.
However, Dai teaches a heating element (the disclosed “heating module” in paragraph [9] corresponds to the heating element of Mitchell) configured to heat a housing (the disclosed “ice outlet” in paragraph [9] corresponds to the housing of Mitchell) at a temperature (corresponds to the temperature associated with the disclosed “preset hardness” in paragraph [9]) that is based on a preselected ice hardness level (disclosed “preset hardness” of the ice cubes in paragraph [9]) to adjust the hardness of the generated ice cubes according to user needs (paragraph [7]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of Mitchell to include “the heating element configured to heat the housing at a temperature that is based on a preselected ice hardness level” in view of the teachings of Dai to adjust the hardness of the generated ice cubes according to user needs.
Regarding claim 18, Mitchell teaches a method (the method described in paragraph [0026]) for producing ice pellets (disclosed “ice nuggets” in paragraph [0026]), the method comprising: receiving, at a housing (casing 170 Fig. 4) defining an ice-making chamber (chamber 173 Fig. 4), a liquid (paragraph [0030]); producing ice (paragraph [0026]) from the liquid in the housing using a heat exchange system (disclosed “sealed system” in paragraph [0027] of Mitchell and fan 176 Fig. 3) associated with the housing (paragraph [0027]); heating an extrusion head (extruder 175 and extruder die 220 Figs. 4-5 and paragraph [0027]) coupled with the housing using a heating element (heater 180 Fig. 3) positioned proximate and external to the extrusion head (Figs. 3-4); receiving the ice at a plurality of openings of the extrusion head (extruding openings 222 Fig. 5 and paragraph [0026]), wherein the ice is moved to the plurality of openings by an auger (auger 172 Fig. 4 and paragraph [0026]) positioned in the housing (Figs. 4-5); and forming the ice pellets by movement of the ice through the plurality of openings of the heated extrusion head (paragraph [0026]).
Mitchell teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach “the method for producing the ice pellets based on a preselected ice hardness level, the method comprising wherein a temperature to which the extrusion head is heated by the heating element is based on the preselected ice hardness level”.
However, Dai teaches a method (the method described in paragraph [9] corresponds to the method of Mitchell) for producing the ice pellets (paragraph [9]) based on a preselected ice hardness level (disclosed “preset hardness” of the ice cubes in paragraph [9]), the method comprising wherein a temperature (corresponds to the temperature associated with the disclosed “preset hardness” in paragraph [9]) to which an extrusion head (the disclosed “ice outlet” in paragraph [9] corresponds to the extrusion head of Mitchell) is heated by a heating element (the disclosed “heating module” in paragraph [9] corresponds to the heating element of Mitchell) is based on the preselected ice hardness level (paragraph [9]) to adjust the hardness of the generated ice cubes according to user needs (paragraph [7]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the method of Mitchell to include “the method for producing the ice pellets based on a preselected ice hardness level, the method comprising wherein a temperature to which the extrusion head is heated by the heating element is based on the preselected ice hardness level” in view of the teachings of Dai to adjust the hardness of the generated ice cubes according to user needs.
Regarding claims 2 and 10, the combined teachings teach further comprising: a heat exchange system (disclosed “sealed system” in paragraph [0027] of Mitchell and fan 176 Fig. 3 of Mitchell) configured to produce the ice from the liquid in the ice-making chamber (paragraph [0027] of Mitchell); and an auger (auger 172 Fig. 4 of Mitchell) positioned in the housing (Fig. 4 of Mitchell) and configured to move the ice toward the extrusion head (paragraph [0026] of Mitchell).
Regarding claim 3, the combined teachings teach further comprising a motor and gear box assembly (housing 240 and motor 174 Fig. 8 of Mitchell where a person skilled in the art would recognize that the motor would include a gear system that would allow the motor to transfer its rotational movement to shaft 232) configured to rotate the auger (paragraph [0040] of Mitchell), wherein a component of the motor and gear box (shaft 232 Fig. 7 of Mitchell) traverses the extrusion head and is coupled with the auger (Fig. 7 and paragraph [0039] of Mitchell).
Regarding claims 6 and 15, the combined teachings teach wherein the housing is a first housing (casing 170 Fig. 4 of Mitchell), and wherein the ice-making system further comprises a second housing (air duct 200 Fig. 4 of Mitchell), wherein the first housing and the extrusion head are positioned within the second housing (Fig. 4 of Mitchell).
Regarding claim 11, the combined teachings teach wherein the ice-making system further comprises a motor and gear box assembly (housing 240 and motor 174 Fig. 8 of Mitchell where a person skilled in the art would recognize that the motor would include a gear system that would allow the motor to transfer its rotational movement to shaft 232) configured to rotate the auger (paragraph [0040] of Mitchell), wherein a component of the motor and gear box (shaft 232 Fig. 7 of Mitchell) traverses the extrusion head and is coupled with the auger (Fig. 7 and paragraph [0039] of Mitchell).
Regarding claim 17, the combined teachings teach wherein the household appliance is a refrigerator (refrigerator appliance 100 Fig. 1 of Mitchell).
Regarding claim 19, the combined teachings teach further comprising: rotating the auger (paragraph [0040] of Mitchell) using a component (shaft 232 Fig. 7 of Mitchell) of a motor and gear box assembly (housing 240 and motor 174 Fig. 8 of Mitchell where a person skilled in the art would recognize that the motor would include a gear system that would allow the motor to transfer its rotational movement to shaft 232) configured to rotate the auger (paragraph [0040] of Mitchell), wherein the component of the motor and gear box traverses the extrusion head and is coupled with the auger (Fig. 7 and paragraph [0039] of Mitchell).
Claims 4, 12, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchell and Dai as applied to claims 1, 9, and 20 above, and further in view of Wada (JP5070946B2).
Regarding claim 4, the combined teachings teach wherein the temperature is a first temperature (corresponds to the temperature associated with the disclosed “preset hardness” in paragraph [9] of Dai) and wherein the ice-making system further comprises a controller (controller 190 Fig. 3 of Mitchell) configured to, based on the preselected ice hardness level (paragraph [9] of Dai), transmit a first signal (understood to be the signal generated by controller 190 to activate and operate motor 174 as disclosed in paragraph [0028] of Mitchell) to a motor of the motor and gear box assembly (motor 174 Fig. 5 of Mitchell) to control a rotations per minute (RPM) of the auger (paragraph [0040] of Mitchell where it is understood that the rotational speed of auger 172 corresponds to the disclosed RPM of the auger), transmit a third signal (understood to be the signal generated by controller 190 to activate and operate heater 180 as disclosed in paragraph [0028] of Mitchell) to the heating element to control the first temperature at which the heating element heats the extrusion head (paragraph [9] of Dai), and transmit a fourth signal (understood to be the signal generated by controller 190 to activate and operate fan 176 as disclosed in paragraph [0028] of Mitchell) to the heat exchange system to control a second temperature of the housing (paragraph [0028] of Mitchell where the generated temperature associated to the control of fan 176 corresponds the disclosed second temperature of the housing).
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “the controller configured to, based on the preselected ice hardness level, transmit a second signal to a liquid fill assembly to control a volume of liquid received by the housing”.
However, Wada teaches a controller (the disclosed “control unit” in paragraph [0021] corresponds to the control unit of Mitchell) configured to, based on a preselected ice hardness level (the level of hardness associated with the disclosed “good quality ice chips” disclosed in paragraph [0007] corresponds to the preselected ice hardness level of Dai), transmit a second signal (corresponds to the signal generated by the control unit when operating water inlet valve 9 as described in paragraph [0021]) to a liquid fill assembly (water inlet valve 9 Fig. 1) to control a volume of a liquid (paragraphs [0007] and [0021]) received by a housing (the disclosed “ice making cylinder” in paragraph [0007] corresponds to the housing of Mitchell) to avoid overloading the drive motor (paragraph [0007]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “the controller configured to, based on the preselected ice hardness level, transmit a second signal to a liquid fill assembly to control a volume of liquid received by the housing” in view of the teachings of Wada to avoid overloading the drive motor.
Regarding claim 12, the combined teachings teach wherein the temperature is a first temperature (corresponds to the temperature associated with the disclosed “preset hardness” in paragraph [9] of Dai) and wherein the ice-making system further comprises a controller (controller 190 Fig. 3 of Mitchell) configured to, based on the preselected ice hardness level (paragraph [9] of Dai), transmit a first signal (understood to be the signal generated by controller 190 to activate and operate motor 174 as disclosed in paragraph [0028] of Mitchell) to a motor of the motor and gear box assembly (motor 174 Fig. 5 of Mitchell) to control a rotations per minute (RPM) of the auger (paragraph [0040] of Mitchell where it is understood that the rotational speed of auger 172 corresponds to the disclosed RPM of the auger), transmit a third signal (understood to be the signal generated by controller 190 to activate and operate heater 180 as disclosed in paragraph [0028] of Mitchell) to the heating element to control the first temperature at which the heating element heats the extrusion head (paragraph [9] of Dai), and transmit a fourth signal (understood to be the signal generated by controller 190 to activate and operate fan 176 as disclosed in paragraph [0028] of Mitchell) to a heat exchange system (disclosed “sealed system” in paragraph [0027] of Mitchell and fan 176 Fig. 3 of Mitchell) to control a second temperature of the housing (paragraph [0028] of Mitchell where the generated temperature associated to the control of fan 176 corresponds the disclosed second temperature of the housing).
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “the controller configured to, based on the preselected ice hardness level, transmit a second signal to a liquid fill assembly to control a volume of the liquid received by the housing”.
However, Wada teaches a controller (the disclosed “control unit” in paragraph [0021] corresponds to the control unit of Mitchell) configured to, based on a preselected ice hardness level (the level of hardness associated with the disclosed “good quality ice chips” disclosed in paragraph [0007] corresponds to the preselected ice hardness level of Dai), transmit a second signal (corresponds to the signal generated by the control unit when operating water inlet valve 9 as described in paragraph [0021]) to a liquid fill assembly (water inlet valve 9 Fig. 1) to control a volume of the liquid (paragraphs [0007] and [0021]) received by a housing (the disclosed “ice making cylinder” in paragraph [0007] corresponds to the housing of Mitchell) to avoid overloading the drive motor (paragraph [0007]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “the controller configured to, based on the preselected ice hardness level, transmit a second signal to a liquid fill assembly to control a volume of the liquid received by the housing” in view of the teachings of Wada to avoid overloading the drive motor.
Regarding claim 20, the combined teachings teach wherein the temperature is a first temperature (corresponds to the temperature associated with the disclosed “preset hardness” in paragraph [9] of Dai), and wherein the method further comprises: transmitting, by a controller (controller 190 Fig. 3 of Mitchell) and based on the preselected ice hardness level (paragraph [9] of Dai), a first signal (understood to be the signal generated by controller 190 to activate and operate motor 174 as disclosed in paragraph [0028] of Mitchell) to a motor of the motor and gear box assembly (motor 174 Fig. 5 of Mitchell) to control a rotations per minute (RPM) of the auger (paragraph [0040] of Mitchell where it is understood that the rotational speed of auger 172 corresponds to the disclosed RPM of the auger), a third signal (understood to be the signal generated by controller 190 to activate and operate heater 180 as disclosed in paragraph [0028] of Mitchell) to the heating element to control the first temperature at which the heating element heats the extrusion head (paragraph [9] of Dai), and a fourth signal (understood to be the signal generated by controller 190 to activate and operate fan 176 as disclosed in paragraph [0028] of Mitchell) to a heat exchange system (disclosed “sealed system” in paragraph [0027] of Mitchell and fan 176 Fig. 3 of Mitchell) to control a second temperature of the housing (paragraph [0028] of Mitchell where the generated temperature associated to the control of fan 176 corresponds the disclosed second temperature of the housing).
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “the method comprising transmitting by the controller and based on the preselected ice hardness level a second signal to a liquid fill assembly to control a volume of the liquid received by the housing”.
However, Wada teaches a method (the method disclosed in paragraph [0007] corresponds to the method of Mitchell) comprising transmitting by a controller (the disclosed “control unit” in paragraph [0021] corresponds to the control unit of Mitchell) and based on a preselected ice hardness level (the level of hardness associated with the disclosed “good quality ice chips” disclosed in paragraph [0007] corresponds to the preselected ice hardness level of Dai) a second signal (corresponds to the signal generated by the control unit when operating water inlet valve 9 as described in paragraph [0021]) to a liquid fill assembly (water inlet valve 9 Fig. 1) to control a volume of a liquid (paragraphs [0007] and [0021]) received by a housing (the disclosed “ice making cylinder” in paragraph [0007] corresponds to the housing of Mitchell) to avoid overloading the drive motor (paragraph [0007]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the method of the combined teachings to include “the method comprising transmitting by the controller and based on the preselected ice hardness level a second signal to a liquid fill assembly to control a volume of the liquid received by the housing” in view of the teachings of Wada to avoid overloading the drive motor.
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchell and Dai as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Lee (KR20190096531A).
Regarding claim 5, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “further comprising an ice breaker coupled with a protrusion of the extrusion head, wherein the protrusion comprises a screw thread, and wherein the ice breaker is rotatable about the screw thread to adjust a position of the ice breaker relative to a surface of the extrusion head”.
However, Lee teaches further comprising an ice breaker (pressing head 321 Fig. 3b) coupled with a protrusion of a extrusion head (upper platform of cylindrical body 31 Fig. 3b where cylindrical body 31 corresponds to the extrusion head of Mitchell), wherein the protrusion comprises a screw thread (Fig. 3b and paragraphs [0025] and [0047]), and wherein the ice breaker is rotatable about the screw thread (Fig. 6 and paragraph [0065] where it is disclosed that upper portion 414 of auger shaft 41 is connected to pressing head 321) to adjust a position of the ice breaker (corresponds to the position of pressing head 321 Fig. 6) relative to a surface of the extrusion head (top surface of the upper platform of cylindrical body 31 Fig. 3b) to improve the compression structure of the ice maker (paragraph [0024]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “further comprising an ice breaker coupled with a protrusion of the extrusion head, wherein the protrusion comprises a screw thread, and wherein the ice breaker is rotatable about the screw thread to adjust a position of the ice breaker relative to a surface of the extrusion head” in view of the teachings of Lee to improve the compression structure of the ice maker.
Regarding claim 14, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein the ice-making system further comprises an ice breaker coupled with a protrusion of the extrusion head, wherein the protrusion comprises a screw thread, and wherein the ice breaker is rotatable about the screw thread to adjust a position of the ice breaker relative to a surface of the extrusion head”.
However, Lee teaches wherein an ice-making system (the ice maker illustrated in Fig. 6 corresponds to the ice-making system of Mitchell) further comprising an ice breaker (pressing head 321 Fig. 3b) coupled with a protrusion of a extrusion head (upper platform of cylindrical body 31 Fig. 3b where cylindrical body 31 corresponds to the extrusion head of Mitchell), wherein the protrusion comprises a screw thread (Fig. 3b and paragraphs [0025] and [0047]), and wherein the ice breaker is rotatable about the screw thread (Fig. 6 and paragraph [0065] where it is disclosed that upper portion 414 of auger shaft 41 is connected to pressing head 321) to adjust a position of the ice breaker (corresponds to the position of pressing head 321 Fig. 6) relative to a surface of the extrusion head (top surface of the upper platform of cylindrical body 31 Fig. 3b) to improve the compression structure of the ice maker (paragraph [0024]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “wherein the ice-making system further comprises an ice breaker coupled with a protrusion of the extrusion head, wherein the protrusion comprises a screw thread, and wherein the ice breaker is rotatable about the screw thread to adjust a position of the ice breaker relative to a surface of the extrusion head” in view of the teachings of Lee to improve the compression structure of the ice maker.
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchell and Dai as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Sugie et al. (JP2004093024A, herein after referred to as Sugie).
Regarding claims 7 and 16, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “further comprising a tank and an inlet line, wherein the inlet line is coupled with an outlet of the tank and an inlet of the housing, and wherein the inlet line is configured to transfer the liquid from the tank to the housing”.
However, Sugie teaches further comprising a tank (water supply tank 50b Fig. 2) and an inlet line (water supply pipe 52 Fig. 2), wherein the inlet line is coupled with an outlet of the tank (Fig. 2) and an inlet of a housing (Fig. 2 where ice-making cylinder 10 corresponds to the housing of Mitchell), and wherein the inlet line is configured to transfer a liquid (the disclosed “water” in paragraph [0034] corresponds to the liquid of Mitchell) from the tank to the housing (paragraph [0034]) to supply water to the housing (paragraph [0034]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “further comprising a tank and an inlet line, wherein the inlet line is coupled with an outlet of the tank and an inlet of the housing, and wherein the inlet line is configured to transfer the liquid from the tank to the housing” in view of the teachings of Sugie to supply water to the housing.
Claims 8 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchell and Dai as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 20100251733 A1, herein after referred to as Kim) and Sugie.
Regarding claim 8, the combined teachings teach wherein the heating element is a first heating element (the disclosed “heating module” in paragraph [9] of Dai) and the temperature is a first temperature (corresponds to the temperature associated with the disclosed “preset hardness” in paragraph [9] of Dai).
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein the system further comprises a second heating element”.
However, Kim teaches wherein the system further comprises a second heating element (first heater 131 Fig. 4 where second heater 132 corresponds to the first heating element of Mitchell) to separate ice in a stepwise manner (paragraph [0049]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “wherein the system further comprises a second heating element” in view of the teachings of Kim to separate ice in a stepwise manner.
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “the second heating element configured to prevent a system failure associated with the ice-making system and to heat the housing at a second temperature that is based on the preselected ice hardness level”.
However, Sugie teaches a second heating element (ice melt heater 40 Fig. 2 corresponds to the second heating element of Kim) configured to prevent a system failure (prevent “ice clogging” as disclosed in paragraph [0003]) associated with an ice-making system (ice maker main body B Fig. 2 corresponds to the ice-making system of Mitchell) and to heat a housing (ice-making cylinder 10 Fig. 2 corresponds to the housing of Mitchell) at a second temperature (corresponds to the temperature associated with ice melt heater 40 when energized due to the rotation speed of induction motor 31 being equal or less than a threshold value as described in paragraph [0086]) that is based on a preselected ice hardness level (the hardness associated with the disclosed “high-quality ice” corresponds to the preselected ice hardness of Dai) to reduce unnecessary power consumption (paragraph [0007]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “the second heating element configured to prevent a system failure associated with the ice-making system and to heat the housing at a second temperature that is based on the preselected ice hardness level” in view of the teachings of Sugie to reduce unnecessary power consumption.
Regarding claim 13, the combined teachings teach wherein the heating element is a first heating element (the disclosed “heating module” in paragraph [9] of Dai) and the temperature is a first temperature (corresponds to the temperature associated with the disclosed “preset hardness” in paragraph [9] of Dai).
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein the ice-making system further comprises a second heating element”.
However, Kim teaches wherein an ice-making system (ice making device 100 Fig. 2 corresponds to the ice-making system of Mitchell) further comprises a second heating element (first heater 131 Fig. 4 where second heater 132 corresponds to the first heating element of Mitchell) to separate ice in a stepwise manner (paragraph [0049]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “wherein the ice-making system further comprises a second heating element” in view of the teachings of Kim to separate ice in a stepwise manner.
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “the second heating element positioned proximate and external to the extrusion head to heat the extrusion head at a second temperature that is based on the preselected ice hardness level”.
However, Sugie teaches a second heating element (ice melt heater 40 Fig. 2 corresponds to the second heating element of Kim) positioned proximate and external to an extrusion head (Fig. 2 where pressure head 12 corresponds to the extrusion head of Mitchell) to heat the extrusion head at a second temperature (corresponds to the temperature associated with ice melt heater 40 when energized due to the rotation speed of induction motor 31 being equal or less than a threshold value as described in paragraph [0086]) that is based on a preselected ice hardness level (the hardness associated with the disclosed “high-quality ice” corresponds to the preselected ice hardness of Dai) to reduce unnecessary power consumption (paragraph [0007]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “the second heating element positioned proximate and external to the extrusion head to heat the extrusion head at a second temperature that is based on the preselected ice hardness level” in view of the teachings of Sugie to reduce unnecessary power consumption.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMBA NMN GAYE whose telephone number is (571)272-8809. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 4:30AM to 2:30PM.
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, Jerry -Daryl Fletcher can be reached at 571-270-5054. 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.
/SAMBA NMN GAYE/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763