DETAILED ACTION
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
Applicant’s election of Group II (claims 7-12, 17, 18) in the reply filed on 3/10/2026 with traverse is acknowledged. Claims 1-6, 13-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 3/10/2026. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the applicant alleges that the restriction does not articulate a search burden. This is not persuasive because the restriction explicitly explains the search burden on page 3-4 of the restriction requirement. The requirement is therefore still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Examiner Request
The applicant is requested to provide line numbers to each claim in all future claim submissions to aide in examination and communication with the applicant about claim recitations. The applicant is thanked for aiding examination.
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.
Claim(s) 8-12, 17, 18 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In regard to claim 8, the recitation, “ice injection valves” is indefinite since the disclosure shows that the recited valves do not inject ice and it is unclear what structure is being required.
In regard to claim 8, there is a mistyping of “comprising” and “ice preparation” on top of each other. Appropriate correction is required.
In regard to claim(s) 11, 17, the recitation, “low density” is indefinite for being relative and patently indistinct as there is no way to determine what density is sufficiently low and what is not.
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.
All of the claims have been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, and it is considered that none of the claim recitations should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gomes (US 2006/0185387). See the indefiniteness rejections and note that the prior art teaches the claimed features as far as can be interpreted. Further note the interpretation of the claim language as outlined in the rejection below.
In regard to claim 7, Gomes teaches an air exhaust structure for dry ice preparation (see whole disclosure, including Fig. 1-2), wherein: a liquid outlet port (34, 28C; para. 25) for ejecting liquid carbon dioxide (para. 23-24) is in communication with external air (outside air) through an air exhaust valve (32).
In regard to claim 8, Gomes teaches an ice preparation cavity (inside 12), one or more injection valves (22), and a liquid inlet pipeline (at least 18; or short line from 20 to 22), wherein: the one or more injection valves (22) are disposed on the liquid inlet pipeline (at least 18), the liquid inlet pipeline (at least 18) is connected to an air exhaust port (outlet port of 32), and the air exhaust valve (32) is disposed between the air exhaust port (outlet port of 32) and the liquid outlet port (34, 28C).
In regard to claim 9, Gomes teaches that the liquid outlet port (34, 28C) and the air exhaust valve (32) are connected to the liquid inlet pipeline (18) through a three-way pipe (26; interpreted as a pipe having at least three lines; alternatively to 26- see 26 and 18 to the short line at top of 20 and including 22 hereafter 26 and 18).
In regard to claim 10, Gomes teaches a first inlet (inlet to 22 from short line from 20 to 22) of the three-way pipe (26 and 18) is connected to the liquid inlet pipeline (short line from 20 to 22), a second inlet (28B) of the three-way pipe (26) is connected to the air exhaust valve (32), an outlet (28C, 34) of the three-way pipe (26) is the liquid outlet port (28C, 34), and the one or more injection valves (22) are disposed between the first inlet (inlet to 22 from short line from 20 to 22) and the liquid outlet port (28C, 34).
Claim(s) 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yu (CN 213810012). See the indefiniteness rejections and note that the prior art teaches the claimed features as far as can be interpreted. Further note the interpretation of the claim language as outlined in the rejection below.
In regard to claim 7, Yu teaches an air exhaust structure for dry ice preparation (see whole disclosure, including Fig. 2), wherein: a liquid outlet port (port to 12) for ejecting liquid carbon dioxide (page 4, para. 5 “ventilated”) is in communication with external air (outside air) through an air exhaust valve (31).
In regard to claim 8, Yu teaches an ice preparation cavity (12), one or more injection valves (2), and a liquid inlet pipeline (to 2), wherein: the one or more injection valves (2) are disposed on the liquid inlet pipeline (to 2), the liquid inlet pipeline (to 2) is connected to an air exhaust port (port from B), and the air exhaust valve (31) is disposed between the air exhaust port (port from B) and the liquid outlet port (port to 12).
In regard to claim 9, Yu teaches that the liquid outlet port (port to 12) and the air exhaust valve (31) are connected to the liquid inlet pipeline (to 2) through a three-way pipe (interpreted as a pipe having at least three lines; pipe structure including 2 and connected to 31 and the liquid inlet pipeline, hereafter Y structure).
In regard to claim 10, Yu teaches a first inlet (to 2) of the three-way pipe (Y structure) is connected to the liquid inlet pipeline (to 2), a second inlet (to 31) of the three-way pipe (Y structure) is connected to the air exhaust valve (31), an outlet (to 12) of the three-way pipe (Y structure) is the liquid outlet port (port to 12), and the one or more injection valves (2) are disposed between the first inlet (to 2) and the liquid outlet port (port to 12).
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim(s) 7-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Admitted prior art (Fig. 1-2; spec. para. 3-4, 35) in view of Gomes (US 2006/0185387). See the indefiniteness rejections and note that the prior art teaches the claimed features as far as can be interpreted. Further note the interpretation of the claim language as outlined in the rejection below.
The Admitted prior art teaches an ice preparation cavity (1), one or more injection valves (spec. para. 3 “electromagnetic valve”), and a liquid inlet pipeline (“pipeline” spec. para. 3), wherein: the one or more injection valves (“electromagnetic valve”) are disposed on the liquid inlet pipeline (“pipeline”), an outer wall (thereof) of the ice preparation cavity (1) comprises a window (7), the window is filled with low-density materials (spec. para. 4, 35 “low-density materials”), and the low-density materials comprise pores (“pores” spec. para 4, 35) or a grid (spec. para. 35).
The Admitted prior art does not explicitly teach a liquid port, air exhaust valve, and three-way pipe as claimed. However, such features are routine and ordinary to provide pressure relief and safety to ensure exhaustion from the cavity as taught by Gomes. Gomes teaches an air exhaust structure for dry ice preparation (see whole disclosure, including Fig. 1-2), wherein: a liquid outlet port (34, 28C; para. 25) for ejecting liquid carbon dioxide (para. 23-24) is in communication with external air (outside air) through an air exhaust valve (32).
Gomes teaches an ice preparation cavity (inside 12), one or more injection valves (22), and a liquid inlet pipeline (at least 18; or short line from 20 to 22), wherein: the one or more injection valves (22) are disposed on the liquid inlet pipeline (at least 18), the liquid inlet pipeline (at least 18) is connected to an air exhaust port (outlet port of 32), and the air exhaust valve (32) is disposed between the air exhaust port (outlet port of 32) and the liquid outlet port (34, 28C).
Gomes teaches that the liquid outlet port (34, 28C) and the air exhaust valve (32) are connected to the liquid inlet pipeline (18) through a three-way pipe (26; interpreted as a pipe having at least three lines; alternatively to 26- see 26 and 18 to the short line at top of 20 and including 22 hereafter 26 and 18).
Gomes teaches a first inlet (inlet to 22 from short line from 20 to 22) of the three-way pipe (26 and 18) is connected to the liquid inlet pipeline (short line from 20 to 22), a second inlet (28B) of the three-way pipe (26) is connected to the air exhaust valve (32), an outlet (28C, 34) of the three-way pipe (26) is the liquid outlet port (28C, 34), and the one or more injection valves (22) are disposed between the first inlet (inlet to 22 from short line from 20 to 22) and the liquid outlet port (28C, 34).
Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Admitted prior art with the liquid port, air exhaust valve, and three-way pipe of Gomes for the purpose of providing greater safety and ensuring fluid can exhaust from the cavity (1) preventing risk of dangerous pressure increases when other exhausting does not function.
Claim(s) 7-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Admitted prior art (Fig. 1-2; spec. para. 3-4, 35) in view of Yu (CN 213810012). See the indefiniteness rejections and note that the prior art teaches the claimed features as far as can be interpreted. Further note the interpretation of the claim language as outlined in the rejection below.
The Admitted prior art teaches an ice preparation cavity (1), one or more injection valves (spec. para. 3 “electromagnetic valve”), and a liquid inlet pipeline (“pipeline” spec. para. 3), wherein: the one or more injection valves (“electromagnetic valve”) are disposed on the liquid inlet pipeline (“pipeline”), an outer wall (thereof) of the ice preparation cavity (1) comprises a window (7), the window is filled with low-density materials (spec. para. 4, 35 “low-density materials”), and the low-density materials comprise pores (“pores” spec. para 4, 35) or a grid (spec. para. 35).
The Admitted prior art does not explicitly teach a liquid port, air exhaust valve, and three-way pipe as claimed. However, such features are routine and ordinary to provide pressure relief and safety to ensure exhaustion from the cavity as taught by Yu. Yu teaches an air exhaust structure for dry ice preparation (see whole disclosure, including Fig. 2), including a liquid outlet port (port to 12) for ejecting liquid carbon dioxide (page 4, para. 5 “ventilated”) is in communication with external air (outside air) through an air exhaust valve (31).
Yu teaches an ice preparation cavity (12), one or more injection valves (2), and a liquid inlet pipeline (to 2), wherein: the one or more injection valves (2) are disposed on the liquid inlet pipeline (to 2), the liquid inlet pipeline (to 2) is connected to an air exhaust port (port from B), and the air exhaust valve (31) is disposed between the air exhaust port (port from B) and the liquid outlet port (port to 12).
Yu teaches that the liquid outlet port (port to 12) and the air exhaust valve (31) are connected to the liquid inlet pipeline (to 2) through a three-way pipe (interpreted as a pipe having at least three lines; pipe structure including 2 and connected to 31 and the liquid inlet pipeline, hereafter Y structure).
Yu teaches a first inlet (to 2) of the three-way pipe (Y structure) is connected to the liquid inlet pipeline (to 2), a second inlet (to 31) of the three-way pipe (Y structure) is connected to the air exhaust valve (31), an outlet (to 12) of the three-way pipe (Y structure) is the liquid outlet port (port to 12), and the one or more injection valves (2) are disposed between the first inlet (to 2) and the liquid outlet port (port to 12).
Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Admitted prior art with the liquid port, air exhaust valve, and three-way pipe of Yu for the purpose of providing greater safety and ensuring fluid can exhaust from the cavity (1) preventing risk of dangerous pressure increases when other exhausting does not function and to provide a prevention of a problem with icing of the a valve seat in a simple, convenient, and low cost manner (page 4, para. 6-Yu).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN F PETTITT whose telephone number is (571)272-0771. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 9-5p. 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): http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. The examiner’s supervisor, Frantz Jules can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOHN F PETTITT, III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights