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 Status
Claims 1-15 and 17-21 are pending. Claim 21 is new. Claim 16 is canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-13, filed 06/29/2026, with respect to claims 1-15 and 17-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of 04/06/2026 has been withdrawn.
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 use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a positioning means in claims 1, 4, 11, and 14-15.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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: a computing device in claims 6 and 15.
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 1-15 and 17-21 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 1 recites the limitations "the first mold" and “the second mold” in lines 11 and 21. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitations "the first mold" and “the second mold” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitations "the first mold" and “the second mold” in lines 20-21. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
The term “substantially” in claim 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The term “about” in claim 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
By virtue of dependency, all dependent claims are also rejected.
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, 3-4, 8, 11, 13-14, 17, 19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lim (KR 20170077363 A, machine translation).
Regarding Claim 1: Lin teaches an apparatus (100) comprising: a support structure (122); a mold having a plurality of cavities (132, 152) for shaping at least one ice ingot (ice ball spheres), the mold (170) being mounted to the support structure (122, see Figure 1) and including: a first mold housing (130) having one or more surfaces (see Figure 2) and a first heat exchanger layer (holes 134); and a second mold housing (150) having one or more surfaces (see Figure 3) and a second heat exchanger layer (holes 154); a first platen assembly (top 119 and 136) and a second platen assembly (bottom 114 and 156); and a positioning means (126, 128, 180, 182) for disposing at least one of the one or more surfaces of the first mold housing (130) adjacent to the first platen assembly (top 118) and disposing at least one of the one or more surfaces of the second mold housing (150) to the second platen assembly (156) to cause the shaping of the at least one ice ingot (ice pieces formed in ice grooves 132, 152) by selectively maintaining tension from the first platen assembly (bottom 114) on the at least one surface of the first mold housing (130) and selectively maintaining tension from the second platen assembly (bottom 114) on the at least one surface of the second mold housing (150) over a time period such that the at least one ice ingot is selectively melted into a plurality of sufficiently distinct ice shapes (ice in grooves, 132, 152) defined by the mold (170), wherein the first heat exchanger layer (holes 134) and the second heat exchanger layer (holes 154) are configured to inductively receive heat and transfer at least a portion of heat from the first platen assembly (136) to the at least one surface of the first mold (130, via holes 134) and from the second platen assembly (156) to the at least one surface of the second mold (150, via holes 154).
Regarding Claim 3: Lim teaches wherein the first heat exchanger layer and the second heat exchanger layer (134, 154) comprise electrically heated layers (electric energy in the holes, page 4 of the machine translation).
Regarding Claim 4: Lim teaches wherein the positioning means (126, 128, 180, 182) is further configured to release the tension on the first mold (130) and the second mold (150) by retracting the first platen assembly (top 118) from the first mold housing (130) and the second platen assembly (bottom 114) from the second mold housing (150) after the time period (page 6 of the machine translation).
Regarding Claim 8: Lim teaches wherein the plurality of mold cavities have a shape selected from the group consisting of a cube shape, a polyhedron shape, a sphere shape (see spheres for ice in Figure 4b), a heart shape, a diamond shape, and a clover shape.
Regarding Claim 11: Lim teaches a method for shaping ice (via 100), the method comprising: providing a mold (170) that forms a plurality of cavities (132, 152), the mold (170) comprising: a first mold housing (130) having one or more surfaces (see Figure 2) and a heat exchanger layer (via holes 134); and a second mold housing (150) having one or more surfaces (see Figure 3) and a second heat exchanger layer (via holes 154), providing a first platen assembly (top 118 and 136) and a second platen assembly (bottom 114 and 156); and providing a positioning means (126, 128, 180, 182) for disposing at least one of the one or more surfaces of the first mold housing (130) adjacent to the first platen assembly (top 118, 136) and disposing at least one of the one or more surfaces of the second mold housing (150) to the second platen assembly (bottom 114, 156); receiving an elongate ingot of clear ice (ice piece, R) in a position between the first mold housing (130) and the second mold housing (150); selectively heating the elongate ingot through the heat exchanger layer (136 to holes 134) and the second heat exchanger layer (156 to holes 154) such that the elongate ingot selectively melts to form a plurality of sufficiently distinct ice shapes (each separate ice piece in the ice grooves, 132, 152) as defined by the plurality of cavities (132, 152 together), wherein the first mold housing (130) and the second mold housing (150) are arranged in a substantially adjacent position during the selective heating (when together); and removing the plurality of sufficiently distinct ice shapes (from grooves 132, 152) from the mold (170), wherein the first heat exchanger layer (136 to holes 154) and the second heat exchanger (156 to holes 154) layer are configured to inductively receive heat and transfer at least a portion of heat from the first platen assembly (136) to the at least one surface of the first mold (130) and from the second platen assembly (156) to the at least one surface of the second mold (150).
Regarding Claim 13: Lim teaches wherein the first heat exchanger layer and the second heat exchanger layer (holes 134, 154) comprise electrically heated layers (electric energy in the holes, page 4 of the machine translation).
Regarding Claim 14: Lim teaches wherein the positioning means (126, 128, 180, 182) is further configured to selectively maintaining tension from the first platen assembly (top 118) on the at least one surface of the first mold housing (130) and selectively maintaining tension from the second platen assembly (bottom 114) on the at least one surface of the second mold housing (150) over a time period such that the elongate ingot is selectively melted (via heat from holes 134, 154) into a plurality of sufficiently distinct ice shapes (ice in grooves, 132, 152) defined by the mold (see Figure 4b).
Regarding Claim 17: Lim teaches wherein the plurality of mold cavities (see sphere grooves 132, 152) have a shape selected from the group consisting of a cube shape, a polyhedron shape, a sphere shape (see spheres for ice in Figure 4b), a heart shape, a diamond shape, and a clover shape.
Regarding Claim 19: Lim teaches wherein the method further comprises performing at least one post processing step on the plurality of sufficiently distinct ice shapes (separate ice pieces of sphere shape), wherein the at least one post processing step comprises selectively cooling the elongate ingot to refreeze surface water on the elongate ingot (via freezing panel 184, and 180, 182).
Regarding Claim 21: Lim teaches wherein: the first heat exchanger layer (electric energy in holes 134) is placed in contact with the first platen assembly (via 136) such that heat is transferred from the first platen assembly (136) through the first heat exchanger layer (holes 134) to the at least one surface of the first mold housing (130), and the second heat exchanger layer (holes 154) is placed in contact with the second platen assembly (156) such that heat is transferred from the second platen assembly (156) through the second heat exchanger layer (154) to the at least one surface of the second mold housing (150).
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 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim (KR 20170077363 A, machine translation) in view of Hasse (3,098,361).
Regarding Claim 2: Lim teaches wherein the inductively received heat originates at a plurality of electrical energy (in holes 134, 154) arranged in contact with the first platen assembly or the second platen assembly (S, 118).
Lim fails to teach wherein the inductively received heat originates at a plurality of electrically charged coils arranged in contact with the first platen assembly or the second platen assembly.
Hasse teaches inductively received heat originates at a plurality of electrically charged coils (9, 9’) arranged in contact with an assembly (Column 3, lines 66-70).
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 inductively received heat originates at a plurality of electrically charged coils arranged in contact with the first platen assembly or the second platen assembly to the structure of Lim as taught by Hasse in order to advantageously keep the molds at desired temperature (see Hasse, Column 5, lines 47-59).
Regarding Claim 12: Lim teaches wherein the inductively received heat originates at a plurality of electrical energy (in holes 134, 154) arranged in contact with the first platen assembly or the second platen assembly (S, 118).
Lim fails to teach wherein the inductively received heat originates at a plurality of electrically charged coils arranged in contact with the first platen assembly or the second platen assembly.
Hasse teaches inductively received heat originates at a plurality of electrically charged coils (9, 9’) arranged in contact with an assembly (Column 3, lines 66-70).
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 inductively received heat originates at a plurality of electrically charged coils arranged in contact with the first platen assembly or the second platen assembly to the structure of Lim as taught by Hasse in order to advantageously keep the molds at desired temperature (see Hasse, Column 5, lines 47-59).
Claims 5 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim (KR 20170077363 A, machine translation) in view of MacAlister (US 2010/0276567 A1).
Regarding Claim 5: Lim teaches a plurality of pockets (for ice), each of the plurality of pockets being disposed between an articulating joint (160) to allow movement during heating or cooling of the ice ingot held by the mold (see Figure 4b).
Lim fails to teach wherein the mold is semi-flexible.
MacAlister teaches wherein a mold is semi-flexible (paragraph [0016]).
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 mold is semi-flexible to the structure of Lim as taught by MacAlister in order to advantageously provide flexibility in order to remove completed ice cubes (see Mac Alister, paragraph [0016]).
Regarding Claim 18: Lim teaches a plurality of pockets (for ice), each of the plurality of pockets (for ice) being disposed between an articulating joint (160) to allow movement during heating or cooling of the elongate ingot held by the mold (see Figure 4b).
Lim fails to teach wherein the mold is semi-flexible.
MacAlister teaches wherein a mold is semi-flexible (paragraph [0016]).
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 mold is semi-flexible to the structure of Lim as taught by MacAlister in order to advantageously provide flexibility in order to remove completed ice cubes (see Mac Alister, paragraph [0016]).
Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim (KR 20170077363 A, machine translation) in view of Wobrock et al. (US 2017/0082338 A1), hereafter referred to as “Wobrock.”
Regarding Claim 6: Lim fails to teach further wherein the apparatus further comprises a computing device having at least one processor and memory storing instructions that when executed cause the at least one processor to generate and trigger display of at least one user interface configured to receive user input corresponding to configuring a recipe for shaping the ice ingot with the apparatus, the recipe including timing instructions for shaping the ice ingot.
Wobrock teaches a computing device (control module 106, paragraph [0010]) having at least one processor (paragraph [0031]) and memory (paragraph [0031]) storing instructions that when executed cause the at least one processor (paragraph [0031]) to generate and trigger display of at least one user interface (108) configured to receive user input corresponding to configuring a recipe for shaping ice ingot with an apparatus (paragraph [0073]), the recipe including timing instructions for shaping the ice ingot (paragraph [0073]).
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 apparatus further comprises a computing device having at least one processor and memory storing instructions that when executed cause the at least one processor to generate and trigger display of at least one user interface configured to receive user input corresponding to configuring a recipe for shaping the ice ingot with the apparatus, the recipe including timing instructions for shaping the ice ingot to the structure of Lim as taught by Wobrock in order to advantageously provide the user the ability to select the types of ice desired (see Wobrock, abstract).
Regarding Claim 15: Lim fails to teach wherein the positioning means is communicatively coupled to a computing device having at least one processor and memory storing instructions that when executed cause the at least one processor to generate and trigger display of at least one user interface for receiving user input corresponding to configuring a recipe for shaping the elongate ingot, wherein the recipe includes timing instructions for shaping the elongate ingot.
Wobrock teaches a positioning means is communicatively coupled to a computing device (control module 106, paragraph [0010]) having at least one processor (paragraph [0031]) and memory (paragraph [0031]) storing instructions that when executed cause the at least one processor (paragraph [0031]) to generate and trigger display of at least one user interface (108) for receiving user input corresponding to configuring a recipe for shaping an elongate ingot (paragraph [0073]), wherein the recipe includes timing instructions for shaping the elongate ingot (paragraph [0073]).
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 positioning means is communicatively coupled to a computing device having at least one processor and memory storing instructions that when executed cause the at least one processor to generate and trigger display of at least one user interface for receiving user input corresponding to configuring a recipe for shaping the elongate ingot, wherein the recipe includes timing instructions for shaping the elongate ingot to the structure of Lim as taught by Wobrock in order to advantageously provide the user the ability to select the types of ice desired (see Wobrock, abstract).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim (KR 20170077363 A, machine translation) in view of Cook (5,924,301).
Regarding Claim 7: Lim fails to teach wherein: the ice ingot is frozen clear ice; the plurality of sufficiently distinct ice shapes are separate, individual volumes of ice; and the plurality of sufficiently distinct ice shapes are tethered together by an ice bridge to form a sprue of ice shapes.
Cook teaches ice ingot is frozen clear ice (36); a plurality of sufficiently distinct ice shapes are separate, individual volumes of ice (see Figure 1, in cavities 18); and the plurality of sufficiently distinct ice shapes are tethered together by an ice bridge (see Figure 5) to form a sprue of ice shapes (36, Column 1, lines 23-43).
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 ice ingot is frozen clear ice; the plurality of sufficiently distinct ice shapes are separate, individual volumes of ice; and the plurality of sufficiently distinct ice shapes are tethered together by an ice bridge to form a sprue of ice shapes to the structure of Lim as taught by Cook in order to advantageously use known harvesting in vertical ice making (see Cook, Column 1, lines 23-43).
Claims 9-10, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim (KR 20170077363 A, machine translation).
Regarding Claim 9: Lim fails to teach wherein the at least one ice ingot is substantially rectangular shape and is about 30 centimeters to about 80 centimeters in length. However, Lim teaches all of the structure of the apparatus. Therefore, 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 ice ingot is substantially rectangular shape and is about 30 centimeters to about 80 centimeters in length to the structure of Lim in order to advantageously provide varying shapes. Furthermore, absent evidence of criticality, change in shape is merely design choice and would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art would before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2144.04 IV A. and B.
Regarding Claim 10: Lim fails to teach wherein the mold comprises an adjustable offset between the first mold housing and the second mold housing to accommodate ice ingots of varying sizes or shapes. However, Lim teaches all of the structure of the apparatus. Therefore, 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 mold comprises an adjustable offset between the first mold housing and the second mold housing to accommodate ice ingots of varying sizes or shapes to the structure of Lim in order to advantageously provide varying shapes. Furthermore, absent evidence of criticality, change in shape is merely design choice and would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art would before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2144.04 IV A. and B.
Regarding Claim 20: Lim fails to teach wherein the mold comprises an adjustable offset between the first mold housing and the second mold housing to accommodate ice ingots of varying sizes or shapes. However, Lim teaches all of the structure of the apparatus. Therefore, 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 mold comprises an adjustable offset between the first mold housing and the second mold housing to accommodate ice ingots of varying sizes or shapes to the structure of Lim in order to advantageously provide varying shapes. Furthermore, absent evidence of criticality, change in shape is merely design choice and would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art would before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2144.04 IV A. and B.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Coomer (US 8,882,489 B1).
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