DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 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: coupling piece in claim 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 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 13-14 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 limitation “coupling piece” in claim 13 invokes 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 originally filed disclosure fails to describe what structure the “coupling piece” is. 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.
Regarding Claim 14, the phrase "pin-like" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "or the like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-5 and 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cox et al. (EP 2660541 A2), hereafter referred to as “Cox.”
Regarding Claim 1: Cox teaches an ice maker (title) for a household refrigerating appliance (intended use, paragraph [0003]), the ice maker (title) comprising: an ice making tray (50) arranged to rotate about an axis of rotation (abstract, paragraph [0054]); a drive unit (44, 55, 55a) for driving the ice making tray (50) in rotation (abstract, paragraph [0054]), wherein the drive unit (44, 55, 55a) comprises an electric motor (AC or DC motor in 44, paragraph [0054]); and a drive control system (microcontroller, 45, 47a, 47b, 44) configured to control operation of the electric motor (AC or DC motor in 44) depending on an electric current consumption (sensed by sensor 45) of said electric motor (AC or DC motor in 44).
Regarding Claim 2: Cox teaches wherein the drive control system (microcontroller, 45, 47a, 47b, 44) is configured to stop running of the electric motor (AC or DC of motor in 44) depending on the fact that a current behavior is detected for the electric current consumption (sensed by sensor 45) of the electric motor (AC or DC of motor in 44) which is characteristic of a proper moving towards and/or reaching of a defined rotational state (paragraph [0063]) of the ice making tray (50).
Regarding Claim 3: Cox teaches wherein the defined rotational state (paragraph [0063]) is a final rotational state (ice release position) of the ice making tray (50).
Regarding Claim 4: Cox teaches wherein the final rotational state (ice release position) of the ice making tray (50) is determined by mechanical stop limitation (via stopper41) of a movement path of a component (gearing not shown housed in body of 44, paragraph [0054]) arranged in a power transmission path from the electric motor (AC or DC motor in 44) to the ice making tray (50).
Regarding Claim 5: Cox teaches wherein the component (gearing not shown housed in body of 44, paragraph [0054]) is arranged upstream of the ice making tray (50) in a direction of power flow (see Figure 1B).
Regarding Claim 7: Cox teaches wherein a different nominal current behavior of the electric current consumption (sensed by sensor 45) of the electric motor (AC or DC motor in 44) for the proper moving towards and/or reaching of the final rotational state (ice release position) is predetermined in mapping to each of two final rotational states (paragraph [0063]) of the ice making tray (50).
Regarding Claim 8: Cox teaches wherein the drive control system (microcontroller, 45, 47a, 47b, 44) is configured to stop running of the electric motor (AC or DC motor in 44) when the ice making tray (50) is rotated from a horizontal position (paragraph [0063]) in a direction of an emptying rotational state (paragraph [0063]), depending on the fact that a current increase behavior (sensed by sensor 45) characteristic of a proper moving towards and/or reaching of the emptying rotational state (paragraph [0063]) is determined for the electric current consumption (sensed by sensor 45) of the electric motor (AC or DC motor in 44).
Regarding Claim 9: Cox teaches wherein the drive control system (microcontroller, 45, 47a, 47b, 44) is configured to take into account the current increase behavior during such a part of the rotational movement path (by 55, 55a) of the ice making tray (50) on which the ice making tray (50) undergoes a twisting (paragraph [0001]) which ensures or promotes breaking away of pieces of ice from the ice making tray (50, paragraph [0001]) in order to assess whether the current increase behavior characteristic of the proper moving towards (paragraph [0063]) and/or reaching of the emptying rotational state is present (ice release position).
Regarding Claim 10: Cox teaches wherein the drive control system (microcontroller, 45, 47a, 47b, 44) is configured to: determine a current angle of rotation of the electric motor (AC or DC motor in 44) and/or the ice making tray (50) based on the electric current consumption (sensed by sensor 45) of the electric motor (AC or DC motor in 44); and control the electric motor as a function of the current angle of rotation (paragraph [0062]).
Regarding Claim 11: Cox teaches wherein the drive control system (microcontroller, 45, 47a, 47b, 44) is configured to determine the current angle of rotation (based on 47b) on the basis of a cumulative current consumption (detected by sensor 45) of the electric motor (AC or DC motor in 44) within a past time interval (Figures 2E and 3E).
Regarding Claim 12: Cox teaches wherein the drive control system (microcontroller, 45, 47a, 47b, 44) is configured to: determine a rotational speed (paragraph [0054]) of the electric motor (AC or DC motor in 44) and/or the ice making tray (50) for each measuring time (Figures 2E and 3E) based on the electric current consumption (sensed by sensor 45) of the electric motor (AC or DC motor in 44) at a plurality of measuring times within a past time interval (see Figures 2E and 3E); and determine the current angle of rotation on the basis of the rotational speeds (paragraph [0063]).
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cox et al. (EP 2660541 A2), hereafter referred to as “Cox,” in view of Shoukyuu et al. (US 2005/0138950 A1), hereafter referred to as “Shoukyuu.”
Regarding Claim 6: Cox fails to teach wherein the component is a gear pinion of a reduction gear.
Shoukyuu teaches a component (23, 131) is a gear pinion (131) of a reduction gear (23, paragraph [0029]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein the component is a gear pinion of a reduction gear to the structure of Cox as taught by Shoukyuu in order to advantageously reduce the rotation of motor controlling the rotation of the shaft (see Shoukyuu, abstract).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cox et al. (EP 2660541 A2), hereafter referred to as “Cox,” in view of Hill et al. (5,992,167), hereafter referred to as “Hill.”
Regarding Claim 13: Cox teaches wherein: the drive unit (44, 55, 55a) is installed in a module housing (housing of body 44) of a drive module (body of 44), which is designed with a coupling piece (54) rotatably mounted on the module housing (see Figures 1A-1B) and in rotary drive connection with the drive unit (see Figure 1B); the coupling piece (54) forms a mechanical interface (see Figure 1B), accessible from outside the drive module (see Figure 1B), for the detachable torsional force-transmitting coupling of the ice making tray (50) to the drive module (paragraph [0054]).
Cox fails to teach the module housing has an opening through which an electrical conductor arrangement connected to the drive unit is led out of the module housing; and at least one of the following measures is taken: the mechanical interface and the opening are formed on opposite sides of the module housing; the conductor arrangement is formed by a circuit board; and/or the module housing has at least one positioning formation on the outside of the module housing near the opening for positioning a control board that is in electrical contact with the conductor arrangement.
Hill teaches a module housing (1) has an opening through which an electrical conductor arrangement (22, 4a, 4b,and harness 23) connected to a drive unit (2) is led out of the module housing (see Figure 1); and at least one of the following measures is taken: a mechanical interface (10) and the opening (slot for 9 into 1 and into 10) are formed on opposite sides (see Figure 1) of the module housing (1); the conductor arrangement (22, 4a, 4b,and harness 23) is formed by a circuit board (4a); and/or the module housing (1) has at least one positioning formation (22, 23) on the outside of the module housing (1) near the opening for positioning a control board (4a) that is in electrical contact with the conductor arrangement (22, 4a, 4b,and harness 23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the module housing has an opening through which an electrical conductor arrangement connected to the drive unit is led out of the module housing; and at least one of the following measures is taken: the mechanical interface and the opening are formed on opposite sides of the module housing; the conductor arrangement is formed by a circuit board; and/or the module housing has at least one positioning formation on the outside of the module housing near the opening for positioning a control board that is in electrical contact with the conductor arrangement to the structure of Cox as taught by Hill in order to advantageously provide electrical power to the motor and controller in the driving unit module housing (see Hill, Column 3, lines 22-45).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cox et al. (EP 2660541 A2), hereafter referred to as “Cox,” in view of Hill et al. (5,992,167), hereafter referred to as “Hill,” as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Baack (US 2017/0023282 A1).
Regarding Claim 14: Cox modified supra fails to teach wherein the at least one positioning formation is pin-like in configuration.
Baack teaches at least one positioning formation (harness 140) is pin-like in configuration (paragraphs [0003] and [0012]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein the at least one positioning formation is pin-like in configuration to the structure of Cox modified supra as taught by Baack in order to advantageously provide a standard wiring harness for retrofitting a user interface (see Baack, paragraph [0012]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Villani (US 2007/0068189 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIRSTIN U OSWALD whose telephone number is (571)270-3557. The examiner can normally be reached 10 a.m. - 6 p.m. M-F.
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, Len Tran can be reached at 571-272-1184. 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.
/KIRSTIN U OSWALD/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/ERIC S RUPPERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights