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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/01/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/20/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the Final on 06/02/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status
This Office Action is in response to the remarks and amendments filed on 09/01/2026. The previous 35 USC 112 rejections have been withdrawn. Claims 12-16 and 18-23 remain pending for consideration.
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:
“cooling fluid supply” in claims 12 and 14.
“a filling level sensor” in claim 19.
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.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
“cooling fluid supply” corresponds to a duct as described on page 3 lines 11-16 of the specification.
“a filling level sensor” comprises “a floating element 23, which is equipped with a magnetic element and floats on the surface of the liquid in the pre-reservoir 20” and “at least one detection unit 24, which is preferably a Hall sensor or a Hall switch” as described in page 12 lines 1-11 of the specification.
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 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 12-16 and 18-23 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 12 recites the limitation “the temperature of the liquid” in lines 12-13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For examination purposes, the phrase “the temperature of the liquid” will be interpreted as -- a temperature of the liquid --
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the ability of the residual liquid” in line 23. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For examination purposes, the phrase “to maintain the ability of the residual liquid” will be interpreted as -- to maintain an ability of the residual liquid --
Claim 13 recites the limitation “cloud forming gases” and “unfrozen residual liquid” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For examination purposes, the phrase “the top to bottom freezing of the liquid in the mould displaces cloud forming gases in the liquid into unfrozen residual liquid” will be interpreted as -- the top to bottom freezing of the liquid in the mould displaces the cloud forming gases in the liquid into the unfrozen residual liquid --
Claims 14-16 and 18-23 are also rejected 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 12-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawada (WO2023189914A1) in view of Ryu (US 20250035358 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Sawada teaches an ice maker (ice maker 1 Fig. 13) comprising: at least one mould (ice making molds 6 Fig. 12) for moulding an ice piece (FR1 Fig. 15C), the mould being arranged along a height axis (Fig. 13 where ice making molds 6 are arranged in the upper section of ice maker 1 above lower space S2); a liquid supply (water passage P1 and lower space S2 Fig. 13) fluidly connected to the at least one mould (paragraph [54]), the liquid supply comprising at least one liquid reservoir (lower space S2 Fig. 8 and paragraph [54]), arranged along the height axis under the at least one mould (Fig. 13), through which liquid (disclosed “water” in paragraph [97]) is supplied to fill the mould (paragraph [97]); a cooling fluid supply (see below annotated Fig. 14 of Sawada) that cools an upper area of the at least one mould (paragraph [97]) such that freezing takes place in the mould along the height axis from top to bottom (paragraph [97]); wherein the top to bottom freezing of the liquid in the mould displaces cloud forming gases (disclosed “cloudy elements” in paragraph [97]) in the liquid into unfrozen residual liquid (disclosed “unfrozen water” in paragraph [97]) below the forming ice piece (paragraph [97] and Fig. 15B), and wherein the residual liquid containing the cloud forming gases is eventually displaced down into the at least one liquid reservoir when the ice piece is formed (paragraph [97] and Fig. 15B); the ice maker maintains an ability of the residual liquid to be displaced from the at least one mould (paragraph [97]).
PNG
media_image1.png
529
444
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Sawada teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach “at least one heater configured to heat the liquid in the at least one liquid reservoir; at least one temperature sensor configured to determine a temperature of the liquid in the at least one liquid reservoir; and at least one controller operatively connected to the at least one heater and the at least one temperature sensor; wherein the controller is configured to control the at least one heater to maintain the liquid entering the at least one mould at a temperature greater than
0
0
C
in order”.
However, Ryu teaches at least one heater (heater 318 Fig. 6) configured to heat a liquid (paragraph [0036] where the disclosed “water” corresponds to the liquid of Sawada) in at least one liquid reservoir (water tank 310 Fig. 6 corresponds to the at least one liquid reservoir of Sawada); at least one temperature sensor (temperature sensor 314 Fig. 6) configured to determine a temperature of the liquid (corresponds to the disclosed “temperature” of the water in paragraph [0036]) in the at least one liquid reservoir (paragraph [0036]); and at least one controller (controller 207 Fig. 5) operatively connected to the at least one heater and the at least one temperature sensor (paragraph [0036]); wherein the controller is configured to control the at least one heater to maintain the liquid entering at least one mould (compartment 224 Fig. 6 corresponds to the at least one mould of Sawada) at a temperature greater than
0
0
C
(paragraph [0036]) to provide water within a predetermined temperature range to the ice maker (paragraph [0036]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of Sawada to include “at least one heater configured to heat the liquid in the at least one liquid reservoir; at least one temperature sensor configured to determine a temperature of the liquid in the at least one liquid reservoir; and at least one controller operatively connected to the at least one heater and the at least one temperature sensor; wherein the controller is configured to control the at least one heater to maintain the liquid entering the at least one mould at a temperature greater than
0
0
C
in order” in view of the teachings of Ryu to provide water within a predetermined temperature range to the ice maker.
Regarding claim 13, the combined teachings teach a connector (see below annotated Fig. 14 of Sawada) that fluidly connects the reservoir to the mould (Fig. 14 of Sawada) and directs the liquid from the reservoir into the mould to fill the mould before freezing (paragraph [97] of Sawada), wherein the top to bottom freezing of the liquid in the mould displaces the cloud forming gases in the liquid into the unfrozen residual liquid below the forming ice piece (paragraph [97] of Sawada), and wherein the residual liquid containing the cloud forming gases is eventually displaced back through the connector into the at least one liquid reservoir when the ice piece is formed (paragraph [97] of Sawada where it is disclosed that the unfrozen water is pushed out to lower space S2).
PNG
media_image2.png
452
527
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, the combined teachings teach further comprising a retainer (inner tray 8 Figs. 4 and 13 of Sawada), wherein the at least one mould is arranged in the retainer (Figs. 4 and 13 of Sawada), and wherein the cooling fluid supply is integrated into the retainer (the cooling fluid supply of Sawada is formed by the upper surface of ice making molds 6 and inner tray 8 see Fig. 13 of Sawada).
Regarding claim 16, the combined teachings teach wherein the at least one heater is arranged at least partially in the at least one liquid reservoir or on a wall of the at least one liquid reservoir (Fig. 6 of Ryu).
Claims 15 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawada in view of Ryu as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 20210389034 A1, herein after referred to as Lee).
Regarding claim 15, the combined teachings teach wherein the at least one mould comprises an upper opening (discharge port 36 Fig. 14 of Sawada) along the height axis (Fig. 14 of Sawada) and a lower inlet (water supply port 34 Fig. 14 of Sawada), wherein the connector is arranged between the at least one liquid reservoir and the at least one mould (Fig. 14 of Sawada), wherein the liquid from the at least one liquid reservoir passes through the connector and enters the at least one mould through the lower inlet opening (paragraph [97] of Sawada), wherein the upper opening and the lower inlet opening are diametrically opposed (Fig. 14 of Sawada).
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein the upper opening is designed such that the ice piece can be removed from the at least one mould”.
However, Lee teaches wherein an upper opening (the upper opening of second tray 380 Fig. 25 corresponds to the upper opening of Sawada) is designed such that an ice piece (the disclosed “ice” in paragraph [0368] correspond to the ice piece of Sawada) can be removed from at least one mould (paragraph [0368] where second tray 380 corresponds to the mold of Sawada).
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 upper opening is designed such that the ice piece can be removed from the at least one mould” in view of the teachings of Lee to efficiently remove the ice from the mold.
Regarding claim 21, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “further comprising at least one second heater for heating the at least one mould”.
However, Lee teaches further comprising at least one second heater (second heater 430 Fig. 27) for heating at least one mould (paragraph [0351] and Fig. 27 where second tray 380 corresponds to the mould of Sawada) to maintain a predetermined ice making rate (paragraph [0141]).
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 at least one second heater for heating the at least one mould” in view of the teachings of Lee to maintain a predetermined ice making rate.
Regarding claim 22, the combined teachings teach wherein the retainer comprises two sections (first tray 9a and second tray 9b Fig. 4 of Sawada) movable relative to each other (Fig. 4 of Sawada), a first section (first tray 9a Fig. 4 of Sawada) and a second section (second tray 9b Fig. 4 of Sawada).
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein a movement of the second section towards the first section deforms the at least one mould, whereby the at least one ice piece is ejected from the at least one mould”.
However, Lee teaches wherein a movement of a second section (Figs. 15 and 26 where first portion 382 corresponds to the second portion of Sawada) towards a first section (Figs. 15 and 26 where second portion 383 corresponds to the first portion of Sawada) deforms at least one mould (Fig. 26 where second tray 380 corresponds to the mould of Sawada), whereby at least one ice piece (Fig. 22) is ejected from the at least one mould (Fig. 22).
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 a movement of the second section towards the first section deforms the at least one mould, whereby the at least one ice piece is ejected from the at least one mould” in view of the teachings of Lee to improve the efficiency of the ice removal process.
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein the first section is arranged along the height axis below the second section”.
However, Applicant has not disclosed that having “wherein the first section is arranged along the height axis below the second section” does anything more than produce the predictable result of providing an ice maker with two distinct sections where one section is movable relative to the other. Since it has been held that mere rearrangement of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, see MPEP 2144.04 VI. C, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings and meet the claimed limitations in order to provide the predictable results of providing an ice maker with two distinct sections where one section is movable relative to the other.
Regarding claim 23, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “a household appliance comprising the ice maker”.
However, Lee teaches a household appliance (refrigerator Fig. 1) comprising an ice maker (Fig. 1b where ice maker 200 corresponds to the ice maker of Sawada) to provide a storage chamber for food (paragraph [0174]).
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 “a household appliance comprising the ice maker” in view of the teachings of Lee to provide a storage chamber for food.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawada in view of Ryu as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Yoshida et al. (JP2007255804A, herein after referred to as Yoshida).
Regarding claim 18, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein the temperature sensor is arranged between the at least one liquid reservoir and the at least one mould, the temperature sensor being arranged at least partially in the connector”.
However, Yoshida teaches wherein a temperature sensor (pipe sensor 46 Fig. 2 corresponds to the temperature sensor of Ryu) is arranged between at least one liquid reservoir (Fig. 2 where water supply tank 41 corresponds to the liquid reservoir of Sawada) and at least one mould (Fig. 2 where ice making tray 52 corresponds to the mold of Sawada), the temperature sensor being arranged at least partially in a connector (Fig. 7 where water supply pipe 43 corresponds to the connector of Sawada) to prevent the connector from freezing (paragraph [0056]).
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 temperature sensor is arranged between the at least one liquid reservoir and the at least one mould, the temperature sensor being arranged at least partially in the connector” in view of the teachings of Yoshida to prevent the connector from freezing.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawada in view of Ryu as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Foster et al. (US 20250052467 A1, herein after referred to as Foster).
Regarding claim 19, the combined teachings teach wherein the liquid supply further comprises a pre-reservoir (water passage P1 Fig. 8 of Sawada) fluidically connected to the at least one liquid reservoir (paragraph [97] of Sawada).
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein the pre-reservoir comprises a filling level sensor”.
However, Foster teaches wherein a pre-reservoir (reservoir 138 Fig. 3 corresponds to the pre-reservoir of Sawada) comprises a filling level sensor (liquid level sensor 136 Fig. 3).
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 pre-reservoir comprises a filling level sensor” in view of the teachings of Foster to monitor the amount of water stored in the pre-reservoir therefore avoiding water overflowing.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawada in view of Ryu as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Jeong et al. (US 20210148623 A1, herein after referred to as Jeong).
Regarding claim 20, the combined teachings teach wherein the at least one mould comprises an elastic material (disclosed “silicone” in paragraph [32] of Sawada).
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “the ice maker further comprising at least one holder arranged on the at least one mould or formed by a wall of the at least one mould, wherein the at least one holder is connected to at least one counter-holder of the retainer, the at least one counter-holder comprising a protrusion”.
However, Jeong teaches an ice maker (ice maker 100 Fig. 7 corresponds to the ice maker of Sawada) further comprising at least one holder (tray coupling portion 116 Fig. 7) arranged on at least one mould (Fig. 7 where ice-making tray 110 corresponds to the mould of Sawada) or formed by a wall of the at least one mould (Fig. 7), wherein the at least one holder is connected to at least one counter-holder of a retainer (coupling portions 122 Fig. 7 and paragraph [0086] where cold air guide 120 corresponds to the retainer of Sawada), the at least one counter-holder comprising a protrusion (coupling portions 122 Fig. 7) to provide a snap fit coupling method (paragraph [0086]).
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 ice maker further comprising at least one holder arranged on the at least one mould or formed by a wall of the at least one mould, wherein the at least one holder is connected to at least one counter-holder of the retainer, the at least one counter-holder comprising a protrusion” in view of the teachings of Jeong to provide a snap fit coupling method.
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein the at least one holder comprises a holding groove, the protrusion received within the holding groove”.
However, Jeong does teach a counter-holder (coupling portions 122 Fig. 7) which is provided with a protrusion (coupling portion 122 Fig. 7 and paragraph [0086]) and a holder (tray coupling portion 116 Fig. 7) which is provided with a hole (coupling hole 116a Fig. 7) to receive the protrusion (paragraph [0086]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art to replace coupling hole 116a of Jeong with a groove and still provide a snap fit coupling method.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 09/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant's arguments on page 7 that combining Ryu and Sawada would “change Sawada’s principle of operation”, Examiner disagrees.
Applicant is reminded that "A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). "In many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle." Id. Office personnel may also take into account "the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." Id. at, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. The "hypothetical 'person having ordinary skill in the art’ to which the claimed subject matter pertains would, of necessity have the capability of understanding the scientific and engineering principles applicable to the pertinent art." Ex parte Hiyamizu, 10 USPQ2d 1393, 1394 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1988).
The Examiner disagrees that the proposed modification would materially change Sawada’s principle of operation. Sawada’s principle of operation is to provide transparent ice. The modification of the ice maker of Sawada in view of the teachings of Ryu to provide a heater and a temperature sensor for the reservoir along with a controller to automate the ice making process, would not materially change Sawada’s principle of operation.
Therefore, Applicant's arguments are not persuasive, and the rejection is maintained.
In response to Applicant's arguments on page 7 that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it is noted that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the Applicant' s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392; 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
The Examiner has met all requirements establishing a prima facie case: all factual findings required by Graham were supplied in the previous and present Actions; the references are related art, and Applicant has supplied no evidence that there is no reasonable expectation of success; all claim limitations were met in the previous and present Actions, and Applicant has merely made the allegation that the limitations are not met, and thus has not provided any evidence or argument directed to how the identified elements in the first action fail to meet the claimed limitations or to how the identified elements are otherwise distinguishable from the claimed limitations. Neither has Applicant supplied any evidence or argument addressing any failure of Examiner's application of the TSM test, pursuant to current governing law (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007)).
Further, motivation was provided in all present and previous combinations of references. Although a specific motivation may not have been explicitly stated within one of the references, the motivation was not improper and provided in accordance with the Teaching-Suggestion-Motivation Test (TSM). As such, Examiner's use of these facts as a motivation statement is in compliance with the requirements of the TSM test, since the Teaching-Suggestion-Motivation (TSM) test should be flexibly applied and the teaching, suggestion, or motivation need not be written within the reference. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (US 2007); Ortho-McNeil Pharm., Inc. v. Mylan Lab., Inc., 520 F.3d 1358, 86 U.S.P.Q.2d 1196 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Ex Parte Kubin, 83 USPQ2d 1410 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 2007).
Therefore, Applicant's arguments are not persuasive, and the rejection is maintained.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on pages 7-8 that Sawada’s ice maker does not “maintain an ability of the residual liquid to be displaced from the at least one mould” as recited by amended claim 12, Examiner disagrees.
For clarity purposes, the above rejection of amended claim 12 is repeated below:
Sawada teaches an ice maker (ice maker 1 Fig. 13) that maintains an ability of residual liquid (disclosed “unfrozen water” in paragraph [97]) to be displaced from at least one mould (ice making molds 6 Fig. 12 and paragraph [97]).
Therefore, Applicant's arguments are not persuasive, and the rejection is maintained.
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
