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 Objections
Claims 1, 3 and 11-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 3, “a replaceable stamp” should say “the replaceable stamp” for claim language consistency.
Claim 3, line 3, “the stamp” should say “the replaceable stamp” for claim language consistency.
Claim 11:
Line 1, “a replaceable stamp” should say “a planar replaceable stamp”
Line 5, “the stamp” should say “the planar replaceable stamp”
Line 5, “the body” should say “the rectangular body”
Line 5, “the against at least one…” should say “against at least one…”
Lines 5 and 6, “the side walls and end walls” should say “the two side walls and the two end walls”
Should all be changed for claim language consistency.
Claim 12:
Lines 1-3 and 6, “the removable stamp” should say “the planar replaceable stamp”
Line 2, “the vertical side edges” should say “the opposing vertical side edges”
Line 4, “the side walls” should say “the two side walls”
Line 4, “the end walls” should say “the two end walls”
Lines 5 and 6, “the vertically curved edges” should say “the vertical curved edges”
Lines 6 and 7, “the replaceable stamp” should say “the planar replaceable stamp”
Line 7, “the body” should say “the rectangular body”
Should all be changed for claim language consistency.
Claim 13:
Lines 1-2, “the side edges” should say “the vertical side edges”
Line 2, “the replaceable stamp” should say “the planar replaceable stamp”
Line 2, “the curved rails” should say “the opposing vertical curved rails”
Line 3. “the opposing side walls and end walls” should say “the two side walls and the two end walls”
Line 3, “the body” should say “the rectangular body”
Should all be changed for claim language consistency.
Claim 14, line 1, “the body” should say “the rectangular body” for claim language consistency.
Claim 15, lines 1-2, “the body” should say “the rectangular body” for claim language consistency.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Examiner wishes to point out to Applicant that the claims are directed to an apparatus/a system and therefore are only limited by positively recited elements. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114 (II) and 2115 for further details.
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 3 and 10 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 3 recites the limitation “the pair of opposing vertical curved edges” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “two of the four walls include two opposing side walls and two opposing end walls to form a rectangular configuration” in lines 1-2. It is unclear how “two walls” include “two opposing side walls” and “two opposing end walls”. Clarification is required. For the purposes of examination, this limitation will be read as the four walls include two opposing side walls and two opposing end walls to form a rectangular configuration. This interpretation is supported by page 9, 4th ¶ of the instant application.
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.
Claims 11, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by BERLINZO - 2 Clear Ice Cubes Maker (NPL 1; hereafter BERLINZO), as evidenced by Amazon - Berlinzo Premium Clear Ice Cube Maker (NPL 2; hereafter Amazon).
As evidenced by Amazon, this ice cube maker was publicly available for purchase on April 14th, 2021.
Regarding claim 11, BERLINZO discloses an ice mold (Pg. 1; 2 clear ice cubes maker with silicone mold) including a planar replaceable stamp (Pg. 1; Marked Product Figure; inserts that create 3D letters on the cube), comprising;
a rectangular body (Pg. 2; Marked Figure from Step 3; rectangular ice mold) having a bottom, two side walls, and two end walls connected together and to the bottom (Pg. 2; Marked Figure from Step 3; rectangular ice mold has bottom, two side walls and two end walls);
a planar replaceable stamp having a three-dimensional image (Pg. 1; Marked Product Figure; three-dimensional image used to create 3D letters), opposing vertical side edges (Pg. 1; Marked Product Figure; opposing vertical side edges, note that the inserts are lying on their side in the figure), and the planar replaceable stamp sized to fit within the rectangular body (Pg. 2; Marked Figure from Step 3; inserts that create 3D letters are sized to fit within rectangular ice mold) and against at least one of the two side walls and the two end walls (Pg. 2; Marked Figure from Step 3; inserts that create 3D letters are capable of placement against the side walls or end walls of the rectangular ice mold as the cavity is cube-shaped).
PNG
media_image1.png
399
720
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
657
825
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, BERLINZO discloses the ice mold of Claim 11, wherein the rectangular body is constructed of flexible material (Pg. 1; rectangular ice mold is made of silicone).
Regarding claim 15, BERLINZO discloses the ice mold of Claim 11, wherein the rectangular body is divided into multiple ice cube receptacles by a dividing wall (Pg. 2; Marked Figure from Step 3; divider wall) so as to enable the rectangular body to form multiple ice cubes simultaneously (Pg. 2; Marked Figure from Step 3; divider wall allows two ice cubes to be formed simultaneously).
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 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.
Claims 1-10, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BERLINZO - 2 Clear Ice Cubes Maker (NPL 1; hereafter BERLINZO), in view of Kamibayashi et al. (JP 2001191315 A; hereafter Kamibayashi; paragraph numbers correspond to attached English machine translation) and evidenced by Amazon - Berlinzo Premium Clear Ice Cube Maker (NPL 2; hereafter Amazon).
As evidenced by Amazon, this ice cube maker was publicly available for purchase on April 14th, 2021.
Regarding claim 1, BERLINZO discloses an ice mold (Pg. 1; 2 clear ice cubes maker with silicone mold) including a replaceable stamp (Pg. 1; Marked Product Figure; inserts that create 3D letters on the cube), comprising;
a body (Pg. 2; Marked Figure from Step 3; rectangular ice mold) having a bottom and four walls connected together and to the bottom (Pg. 2; Marked Figure from Step 3; rectangular ice mold has bottom, two side walls and two end walls);
the replaceable stamp having a three-dimensional image (Pg. 1; Marked Product Figure; three-dimensional image used to create 3D letters) and sized to fit within the body against at least one of the four walls (Pg. 2; Marked Figure from Step 3; inserts that create 3D letters are capable of placement against the side walls or end walls of the rectangular ice mold as the cavity is cube-shaped), the replaceable stamp including opposing vertical side edges (Pg. 1; Marked Product Figure; opposing vertical side edges, note that the inserts are lying on their side in the figure).
PNG
media_image3.png
346
624
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
497
624
media_image4.png
Greyscale
BERLINZO does not disclose vertical curved edges on the opposing vertical side edges of the replaceable stamp and at least two opposing walls of the four walls include opposing vertical curved rails sized to receive the vertical curved edges of the replaceable stamp so as to properly guide and position the replaceable stamp within the body during insertion of the replaceable stamp into the body.
However, Kamibayashi teaches that it was known in the art of static molds that a planar replaceable mold insert (Marked Fig. 7; [0002]; planar replaceable mold insert 17 (replaceable liner member 17)) may be positioned against walls of a rectangular mold (Fig. 7; [0004]; frame die 19) using curved edges (Fig. 7; [0004]; concave groove portion 18) within opposing side edges (Marked Fig. 7; opposing side edges) of the planar replaceable mold insert that are designed to cooperate with opposing curved rails (Fig. 7; [0004]; convex portion 20 provided on the walls of the frame die 19) provided on the walls of the rectangular mold.
PNG
media_image5.png
792
943
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor's endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See MPEP 707.07(f). BERLINZO and Kamibayashi are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of static molds with planar replaceable mold inserts configured to be placed against walls of the static molds. Furthermore, Kamibayashi is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned because it discusses different mechanisms by which a planar replaceable mold insert may be coupled to walls of a rectangular mold. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify BERLINZO with the teachings of Kamibayashi to provide curved edges on the opposing vertical side edges of the replaceable stamp and at least two opposing walls of the four walls include opposing curved rails sized to receive the curved edges of the replaceable stamp so as to properly guide and position the replaceable stamp within the body during insertion of the replaceable stamp into the body. Doing so would allow the planar replaceable stamp to be easily replaced when it wears from repeated molding (Kamibayashi [0002]).
BERLINZO, in view of Kamibayashi, does not explicitly disclose the curved edges and curved rails are arranged vertically.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art can recognize the curved edges and curved rails can only be arranged in a horizontal, vertical or diagonal configuration. Given the limited number of options for the arrangement of the curved edges and curved rails, either horizontal, vertical or diagonal, it would have been obvious to try the different configurations in a routine experimentation given the limited number of options with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.
Regarding claim 2, modified BERLINZO discloses the ice mold of Claim 1, wherein BERLINZO further discloses the four walls of the body have a rectangular configuration (Pg. 2; Marked Figure from Step 3; rectangular ice mold) and are constructed of flexible material (Pg. 1; rectangular ice mold is made of silicone).
Regarding claim 3, modified BERLINZO discloses the ice mold of Claim 1, wherein the modification of BERLINZO as provided in claim 1 above provides a pair of opposing vertical curved edges on the opposing vertical side edges of the replaceable stamp extend longitudinally along the opposing vertical side edges of the replaceable stamp.
Regarding claim 4, modified BERLINZO discloses the ice mold of Claim 1, wherein the modification of BERLINZO as provided in claim 1 above provides the vertical curved edges on the opposing vertical side edges of the replaceable stamp extend longitudinally along the opposing vertical side edges of the stamp.
Modified BERLINZO does not explicitly disclose the curved edges have a concave configuration.
However, Kamibayashi further teaches the curved edges have a concave configuration ([0004]; concave groove portion 18).
It has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor's endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See MPEP 707.07(f). BERLINZO and Kamibayashi are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of static molds with planar replaceable mold inserts configured to be placed against walls of the static molds. Furthermore, Kamibayashi is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned because it discusses different mechanisms by which a planar replaceable mold insert may be coupled to walls of a rectangular mold. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify modified BERLINZO with the teachings of Kamibayashi to provide the curved edges have a concave configuration. Doing so would allow the planar replaceable stamp to be easily replaced when it wears from repeated molding (Kamibayashi [0002]).
Regarding claim 5, modified BERLINZO discloses the ice mold of Claim 1.
Modified BERLINZO does not explicitly disclose the opposing curved rails on the at least two opposing walls have a convex configuration.
However, Kamibayashi further teaches the opposing curved rails on the at least two opposing walls have a convex configuration ([0004]; convex portion 20 provided on the walls of the frame die 19).
It has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor's endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See MPEP 707.07(f). BERLINZO and Kamibayashi are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of static molds with planar replaceable mold inserts configured to be placed against walls of the static molds. Furthermore, Kamibayashi is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned because it discusses different mechanisms by which a planar replaceable mold insert may be coupled to walls of a rectangular mold. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify modified BERLINZO with the teachings of Kamibayashi to provide the opposing curved rails on the at least two opposing walls have a convex configuration. Doing so would allow the planar replaceable stamp to be easily replaced when it wears from repeated molding (Kamibayashi [0002]).
Regarding claim 6, modified BERLINZO discloses the ice mold of Claim 1, wherein BERLINZO further discloses the three-dimensional image on the replaceable stamp is recessed within a face of the replaceable stamp (Pg. 1; Marked Product Figure; three-dimensional image used to create 3D letters is recessed within insert).
Regarding claim 7, modified BERLINZO discloses the ice mold of Claim 1, wherein BERLINZO further discloses the replaceable stamp is planar (Pg. 1; Marked Product Figure; inserts that create 3D letters) and constructed of flexible material (Pg. 1; Marked Product Figure; inserts that create 3D letters are formed from the same silicone as the silicone mold).
Regarding claim 8, modified BERLINZO discloses the ice mold of Claim 1, wherein BERLINZO further discloses the body is divided into multiple ice cube receptacles by a dividing wall (Pg. 2; Marked Figure from Step 3; divider wall) so as to enable the body to form multiple ice cubes simultaneously (Pg. 2; Marked Figure from Step 3; divider wall allows two ice cubes to be formed simultaneously).
Regarding claim 9, modified BERLINZO discloses the ice mold of Claim 8, wherein BERLINZO further discloses the replaceable stamp is located within one of the multiple ice cube receptacles (Pg. 2; Marked Figure from Step 3; inserts that create 3D letters are located within cavities of the rectangular ice mold).
Regarding claim 10, modified BERLINZO discloses the ice mold of Claim 1, wherein BERLINZO further discloses the four walls include two opposing side walls and two opposing end walls to form a rectangular configuration (Pg. 2; Marked Figure from Step 3; rectangular ice mold has two side walls and two end walls).
Regarding claim 12, BERLINZO discloses the ice mold of Claim 11.
BERLINZO does not disclose the planar replaceable stamp includes vertical curved edges extending longitudinally within the opposing vertical side edges of the planar replaceable stamp; and at least one pair of the two side walls and the two end walls of the rectangular body includes opposing vertical curved rails extending longitudinally and sized to receive the vertical curved edges of the planar replaceable stamp to properly position the planar replaceable stamp within the rectangular body during insertion of the planar replaceable stamp into the rectangular body.
However, Kamibayashi teaches that it was known in the art of static molds that a planar replaceable mold insert (Marked Fig. 7; [0002]; planar replaceable mold insert 17 (replaceable liner member 17)) may be positioned against walls of a rectangular mold (Fig. 7; [0004]; frame die 19) using curved edges (Fig. 7; [0004]; concave groove portion 18) within opposing side edges (Marked Fig. 7; opposing side edges) of the planar replaceable mold insert that are designed to cooperate with opposing curved rails (Fig. 7; [0004]; convex portion 20 provided on the walls of the frame die 19) provided on the walls of the rectangular mold.
PNG
media_image5.png
792
943
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor's endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See MPEP 707.07(f). BERLINZO and Kamibayashi are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of static molds with planar replaceable mold inserts configured to be placed against walls of the static molds. Furthermore, Kamibayashi is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned because it discusses different mechanisms by which a planar replaceable mold insert may be coupled to walls of a rectangular mold. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify BERLINZO with the teachings of Kamibayashi to provide the planar replaceable stamp includes curved edges extending longitudinally within the opposing side edges of the planar replaceable stamp; and at least one pair of the two side walls and the two end walls of the rectangular body includes opposing curved rails extending longitudinally and sized to receive the curved edges of the planar replaceable stamp to properly position the planar replaceable stamp within the rectangular body during insertion of the planar replaceable stamp into the rectangular body. Doing so would allow the planar replaceable stamp to be easily replaced when it wears from repeated molding (Kamibayashi [0002]).
BERLINZO, in view of Kamibayashi, does not explicitly disclose the curved edges and curved rails are arranged vertically.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art can recognize the curved edges and curved rails can only be arranged in a horizontal, vertical or diagonal configuration. Given the limited number of options for the arrangement of the curved edges and curved rails, either horizontal, vertical or diagonal, it would have been obvious to try the different configurations in a routine experimentation give the limited number of options with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.
Regarding claim 13, modified BERLINZO discloses the ice mold of Claim 12, wherein Kamibayashi further teaches the curved edges on the side edges have a concave configuration ([0004]; concave groove portion 18) and the opposing curved rails on the walls have a convex configuration ([0004]; convex portion 20 provided on the walls of the frame die 19).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hays et al. (US 20230366602 A1) discloses an apparatus for making stylized ice cubes using a planar insert.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Vipul Malik whose telephone number is (571)272-0976. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571)270-1487. 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.
/V.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1754
/SUSAN D LEONG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1754