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 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(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Favero (EP 4275509) in view of Torii (JPH 11211296).
Regarding claims 1 and 14, Favero teaches a method of operating an ice maker appliance (10), the ice maker appliance comprising a mold body (132) comprising a mold cavity (139, 140), a fill tube (131) and a dosing pump (131) the method comprising: receiving a user input (user, library of parameter, paragraph 0034); operating the dosing pump according to an operating parameter (library of parameters, paragraph 0034), the operating parameter based on the user input (paragraph 0034) but fails to explicitly teach a fill tube operable to provide a flow of liquid water to the mold cavity, and a dosing pump operable to motivate a flow of additive to the mold cavity and a dosing pump operable to motivate a flow of additive to the mold cavity, the method comprising flowing a volume of liquid water from the fill tube to the mold cavity; operating the dosing pump according to an operating parameter to motivate a flow of additive to the mold cavity, whereby a volume of additive proportional to the operating parameter of the dosing pump is provided to the mold cavity; and retaining a mixture comprising the volume of liquid water and the volume of additive proportional to the operating parameter of the dosing pump in the mold cavity to form at least a portion of an ice piece, whereby the formed ice piece comprises the water and the additive.
However, Torii teaches a fill tube (6 to 7) operable to provide a flow of liquid water (31) to the mold cavity (1), and a dosing pump (5) operable to motivate a flow of additive (41) to the mold cavity the method comprising flowing a volume of liquid water from the fill tube to the mold cavity (paragraph 0018); operating the dosing pump according to an operating parameter (17% of 41, paragraph 0017) to motivate a flow of additive to the mold cavity (paragraph 0020), whereby a volume of additive (17%, paragraph 0017) proportional to the operating parameter of the dosing pump is provided to the mold cavity; and retaining a mixture comprising the volume of liquid water (31 is cooled, paragraph 0018) and the volume of additive proportional to the operating parameter of the dosing pump in the mold cavity to form at least a portion (valve switched and 41 is supplied, paragraph 0020) of an ice piece (ice, paragraph 0001), whereby the formed ice piece comprises the water and the additive (paragraph 0004) to provide infused ice with flavor.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the ice maker appliance of Favero include a fill tube operable to provide a flow of liquid water to the mold cavity, and a dosing pump operable to motivate a flow of additive to the mold cavity and a dosing pump operable to motivate a flow of additive to the mold cavity, the method comprising flowing a volume of liquid water from the fill tube to the mold cavity; operating the dosing pump according to an operating parameter to motivate a flow of additive to the mold cavity, whereby a volume of additive proportional to the operating parameter of the dosing pump is provided to the mold cavity; and retaining a mixture comprising the volume of liquid water and the volume of additive proportional to the operating parameter of the dosing pump in the mold cavity to form at least a portion of an ice piece, whereby the formed ice piece comprises the water and the additive in view of the teachings of Torri to provide infused ice with flavor.
Regarding claims 2 and 13, the combined teachings teach the volume of liquid water is a first volume of liquid (paragraph 0033 of Torii), wherein the portion of the ice piece is a first layer (12 of Torii) of the ice piece, further comprising flowing a second volume of liquid water (paragraph 0033 of Torii) to the mold cavity after forming the first layer of the ice piece (paragraph 0032 of Torii), and retaining the second volume of liquid water in the mold cavity to form a second layer of the ice piece(12 of Torii), whereby the ice piece comprises the first layer (12 of Torii) and the second layer (13 of Torii), the first layer of the ice piece comprising a first concentration of the additive (3.5%, paragraph 0017 of Torii) and the second layer of the ice piece comprising a second concentration of the additive (17%, paragraph 0017 of Torii, the second concentration different from the first concentration (3.5% vs. 17%, paragraph 0017 of Torii).
However, the only differences in the claimed invention and the apparatus described by Torii is a difference in the claimed concentration of the additive and water. Torii discloses that adjusting the concentration of the of the raw material would be within the level of ordinary skill in order to adjust the sweetness of the ice product. Further there is no evidence on the record that the particular water to additive concentration is critical. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, to modify Torii such that the concentration was adjusted such that the one of the first volume of liquid or the second volume of liquid consists of only the liquid additive or only of water in order to adjust the sweetness of the product and generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical, see MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A),
Regarding claim 3, the combined teachings teach the operating parameter based on the user input comprises a speed of the dosing pump (variable control parameters of 130, paragraph 0037, 0049 of Favero) but fails to explicitly teach wherein operating the dosing pump comprises operating the dosing pump at the speed to motivate the flow of additive to the mold cavity.
With respect to operating the dosing pump comprises operating the dosing pump at the speed to motivate the flow of additive to the mold cavity, the examiner takes Official notice of the fact that using operating the dosing pump speed is extremely well known and capable of such instant and unquestionable demonstration as to defy dispute. Further, simply inputting a speed of the dosing pump based on user input is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, see MPEP 2144.04 (III). As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, to modify Torii such that the claimed method was performed by a user input in order to advantageously control the dosing pump method disclosed.
Regarding claim 4, the combined teachings teach the operating parameter based on the user input comprises a dosing time (the concentrations and intervention times are preset and modifiable by the user, paragraph 0026 of Favero), wherein operating the dosing pump comprises operating the dosing pump to motivate the flow of additive to the mold cavity for the dosing time (understood 130 would be active during activation times, paragraph 0038 of Favero).
Regarding claim 5, the combined teachings teach the operating parameter based on the user input comprises a number of flows of additive (multiple flavorings, paragraph 0039 of Favero), wherein operating the dosing pump comprises operating the dosing pump to motivate the number of flows of additive to the mold cavity (paragraph 0039, 0041 of Favero), whereby the number of flows collectively define the volume of additive provided to the mold cavity (paragraph 0039, 0041 of Favero, paragraph 0017 of Torii).
Regarding claim 6, the combined teachings teach the volume of liquid water is a predetermined volume (3.5%, paragraph 0017 of Torii) but fails to explicitly teach water.
However, the only differences in the claimed invention and the apparatus described by Torii is a difference in the claimed concentration of the additive and water. Torii discloses that adjusting the concentration of the of the raw material would be within the level of ordinary skill in order to adjust the sweetness of the ice product. Further there is no evidence on the record that the particular water to additive concentration is critical. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, to modify Torii such that the concentration was adjusted such that the one of the first volume of liquid or the second volume of liquid consists of only the liquid additive or only of water in order to adjust the sweetness of the product and generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical, see MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A).
Regarding claim 7, the combined teachings teach the volume of liquid water is determined based on the user input (the concentrations and intervention times are preset and modifiable by the user, paragraph 0026, paragraph 0039, 0041 of Favero, paragraph 0017 of Torii).
Regarding claim 8, the combined teachings teach the user input comprises a selection of one of a plurality of predefined additive concentration levels (the concentrations and intervention times are preset and modifiable by the user, paragraph 0026, paragraph 0039, 0041 of Favero, paragraph 0017 of Torii).
Regarding claim 9, the combined teachings teach the user input comprises a concentration value (the concentrations and intervention times are preset and modifiable by the user, paragraph 0026, paragraph 0039, 0041 of Favero, paragraph 0017 of Torii).
Regarding claims 10, 19, the combined teachings teach the user input is received from a local user interface of the ice maker appliance (the concentrations and intervention times are preset and modifiable by the user, it is well known in the to provide a user interface to change presets or provide input, paragraph 0026, paragraph 0039, 0041 of Favero, paragraph 0017 of Torii).
Regarding claims 11, 20, the combined teachings teach the user input is received from a remote user interface device (the concentrations and intervention times are preset and modifiable by the user, it is well known in the to provide a user interface on a mobile device to change presets or provide input, paragraph 0026, paragraph 0039, 0041 of Favero, paragraph 0017 of Torii).
Regarding claim 12, the combined teachings teach all the limitations of claim 12 including receiving a user input device (the concentrations and intervention times are preset and modifiable by the user, it is well known in the to provide a user interface on a mobile device to change presets or provide input, paragraph 0026, paragraph 0039, 0041 of Favero, paragraph 0017 of Torii); determining a volume of liquid water based on the user input. See rejection of claim 1 (the concentrations and intervention times are preset and modifiable by the user, paragraph 0026, paragraph 0039, 0041 of Favero, paragraph 0017 of Torii).
Regarding claim 15, the combined teachings teach the volume of additive provided to the mold cavity is a predetermined volume (3.5%, 17%, paragraph 0017 of Torii).
Regarding claim 16, the combined teachings teach the user input comprises a selection of one of a plurality of predefined additive concentration levels (the concentrations and intervention times are preset and modifiable by the user, paragraph 0022, 0026, 0033, paragraph 0039, 0041 of Favero, paragraph 0017 of Torii).
Regarding claim 17, the combined teachings teach the user input comprises a concentration value (the concentrations and intervention times are preset and modifiable by the user, paragraph 0022, 0026, 0033, paragraph 0039, 0041 of Favero, paragraph 0017 of Torii).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20210356190 teaches it is known to provide layering in an ice making tray; and
US 6672097 teaches it is known to provide a user input for flavored ice on the front of refrigerator.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH J MARTIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3840. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-3:00 CT pm 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, 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.
/ELIZABETH J MARTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763