Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/750,153

EVAPORATOR PAN WITH CONTROL SYSTEM

Non-Final OA §102§112
Filed
Jun 21, 2024
Examiner
VAZQUEZ, ANA M
Art Unit
3763
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Zoppas Industries De Mexico S A De C V
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
80%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 80% — above average
80%
Career Allow Rate
686 granted / 857 resolved
+10.0% vs TC avg
Strong +17% interview lift
Without
With
+17.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
40 currently pending
Career history
897
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
46.5%
+6.5% vs TC avg
§102
23.2%
-16.8% vs TC avg
§112
25.2%
-14.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 857 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §112
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 1-7, 9, 12, 18 and 21 and 44-45 are objected to because of the following informalities: The recitation of “processor;” (claim 1, line 7) is believed to be --processor,--. The recitation “to evaporate it” (claim 44, line 4) is believed to be --to evaporate the water--. The recitation of “the PTC cartridge” recited in claim 45, lines 3 and 4, is believed to be --the positive temperature coefficient (PTC)--. Appropriate correction is required. 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: Heating element - an electric heater is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification (par. 113) as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. electronic control unit - a controller is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification (par. 91) 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 44-45 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 44 recites the limitation "the PTC cartridge" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation has been considered as --the positive temperature coefficient (PTC)--. Claim 44 recites the limitation "the electric power supply" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation has been considered as --an electric power supply--. 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. Claim(s) 1-7, 9, 12, 18, 21-23, 25-28, 33 and 44-45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Keller (DE 10 2011075002 A1, refer to attached translation). Regarding claims 1-2, Keller discloses an evaporator pan system (refer to figs. 1-2), comprising: an evaporator pan (42); a heating element (43) at least partially positioned within the evaporator pan, the heating element configured to heat a liquid within the evaporator pan (42) to cause evaporation of the liquid (refer to par. 1); a thermistor (refer to PTC heating element 50) positioned at least partially within the evaporator pan; and a controller (44) coupled to the heating element and the thermistor (refer to fig. 2), wherein the controller includes at least one data processor, and at least one memory storing instructions, which when executed by the at least one data processor (refer to par. 21, wherein a calibration method at a production site is possible and to store different calibration curves depending on ambient temperature in a data memory which is assigned to a control device of a refrigeration appliance), are configured to cause operations including: detecting a first current passing through the thermistor; determining the first current meets a threshold current, wherein the first current meeting the threshold current indicates a presence of a threshold volume of the liquid within the evaporator pan; and activating, based on determining the first current is greater than the threshold current, the heating element to cause evaporation of at least a portion of the liquid within the evaporator pan (refer to paras. 52-55, wherein the controller 44 comprises an activation unit 56 for activating and deactivating the thermistor 50, a detection unit 58 for detecting at least a parameter from the thermistor, such as a power consumption value P of the thermistor, a comparison unit 60 for comparing the detected operating parameter with a predetermined reference value, and a decision unit 62 for deciding whether the thermistor should be operated or deactivated further; if the detected constant power consumption value P is greater than the reference value, this means that the evaporator pan 42 has reached a critical filling state and evaporation of the water collected therein should be initiated). Regarding claim 3, Keller meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1. Further, Keller discloses wherein the first current corresponds to a decreased temperature experienced by the thermistor, wherein the decreased temperature is associated with a volume of the liquid within the evaporator pan meeting the threshold volume, and wherein at least the portion of the liquid is in contact with the thermistor when the volume of the liquid within the evaporator pan meets the threshold volume of the liquid (refer to paras. 11 and 18, wherein the resistance is dependent on the temperature surrounding the heating element and increases or decreases linearly with the temperature in the specific temperature range; the faster the ambient temperature of the heating element changes, the faster its resistance value also changes, and if the heating element is now surrounded by the liquid collected in the pan, the resistance value changes significantly less than if the heating element is not in contact with the liquid, therefore, the first current corresponding to a decreased temperature experienced by the thermistor when in contact with the liquid). Regarding claim 4, Keller meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1. Further, Keller discloses wherein the operations further include: supplying power to the heating element until a second current is detected that is lower than the threshold current (refer to par. 55, wherein if the detected constant power consumption value P is lower than the reference value P, this means that a critical filling state in the pan has not yet been reached, and continuing operation would thus only unnecessarily consume energy, while still not requiring any evaporation power). Regarding claim 5, Keller meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 4. Further, Keller discloses wherein the operations further comprise: detecting the second current passing through the thermistor; and determining, based on the detected second current, the second current fails to meet the threshold current, wherein the second current failing to meet the threshold current indicates a volume of the liquid is less than the threshold volume of the liquid (refer to par. 55, wherein if the detected constant power consumption value P is lower than the reference value P, this means that a critical filling state in the pan has not yet been reached). Regarding claim 6, Keller meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 5. Further, Keller discloses wherein the operations further comprise preventing power from being supplied to the heating element based on determining the second current fails to meet the threshold current (refer to par. 62, step S7, wherein during the continued operation of the PTC heating element 50, it is checked in step S7 via the detection unit 58, the comparison unit 60 and the decision unit 62 whether the power consumption value P falls below the predetermined deactivation power consumption value P, and if this is the case, the PTC heating element 50 is deactivated in step S8 via the activating unit 56 (the thermistor includes the heating element as can be seen from fig. 2)). Regarding claim 7, Keller meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 5. Further, Keller discloses wherein a decrease from the first current to the second current corresponds to an increase in temperature experienced by the thermistor, wherein the increase in temperature raises a resistance of the thermistor, and wherein the increase in temperature indicates the volume of the liquid is less than the threshold volume of the liquid (refer to fig. 5, step S7, and paras. 11 and 18, the resistance is dependent on the temperature surrounding the heating element and increases or decreases linearly with the temperature in the specific temperature range; the faster the ambient temperature of the heating element changes, the faster its resistance value also changes, and if the heating element is now surrounded by the liquid collected in the pan, the resistance value changes significantly less than if the heating element is not in contact with the liquid, therefore, a decrease from the first current to the second current corresponds to an increase in temperature experienced by the thermistor). Regarding claim 9, Keller meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1. Further, Keller discloses wherein the operations further include: generating an alert based on determining the first current meets a threshold current (refer to par. 54, wherein the decision unit 62 outputs the control command to the activation unit 56 in order to operate or deactivate the thermistor/heating element, therefore, said output of the decision unit 62 being considered as the alert). Regarding claim 12, Keller meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1. Further, Keller discloses wherein the thermistor (PTC heating element 50) includes the heating element (43 as can be seen from fig. 2). Regarding claim 18, Keller meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1. Further, Keller discloses wherein at least a portion of the heating element (43) is spaced apart from a base of the evaporator pan (42, refer to fig. 1), allowing at least some of the liquid to be positioned between the base and the heating element without contacting the heating element, and wherein the spacing between the base of the evaporator pan and at least the portion of the heating element corresponds to the threshold volume of the liquid (refer to fig. 1). Regarding claim 21, Keller meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1. Further, Keller discloses a refrigerator (refer to refrigeration appliance, fig. 1). Regarding claims 22-23, Keller discloses a computer-implemented method, comprising: detecting, by a controller (44, figs. 1-2), a first current passing through a thermistor (refer to PTC heating element 50) of an evaporator pan control system coupled to an evaporator pan (42), wherein the evaporator pan control system comprises: a heating element (43) at least partially positioned within the evaporator pan (refer to fig. 1), the heating element (43) configured to heat a liquid within the evaporator pan to cause evaporation of the liquid; the thermistor (50) positioned at least partially within the evaporator pan (refer to fig. 1); and the controller (44), wherein the controller is coupled to the heating element and the thermistor (refer to figs. 1-2); determining, by the controller (44), the first current meets a threshold current, wherein the first current meeting the threshold current indicates a presence of a threshold volume of the liquid within the evaporator pan; and activating, by the controller and based on determining the first current is greater than the threshold current, the heating element to cause evaporation of at least a portion of the liquid within the evaporator pan (refer to paras. 52-55, wherein the controller 44 comprises an activation unit 56 for activating and deactivating the thermistor 50, a detection unit 58 for detecting at least a parameter from the thermistor, such as a power consumption value P of the thermistor, a comparison unit 60 for comparing the detected operating parameter with a predetermined reference value, and a decision unit 62 for deciding whether the thermistor should be operated or deactivated further; if the detected constant power consumption value P is greater than the reference value, this means that the evaporator pan 42 has reached a critical filling state and evaporation of the water collected therein should be initiated). Regarding claim 25, Keller meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 22. Further, Keller discloses supplying power to the heating element until a second current is detected that is lower than the threshold current (refer to par. 55, wherein if the detected constant power consumption value P is lower than the reference value P, this means that a critical filling state in the pan has not yet been reached, and continuing operation would thus only unnecessarily consume energy, while still not requiring any evaporation power). Regarding claim 26, Keller meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 25. Further, Keller discloses detecting the second current passing through the thermistor; and determining, based on the detected second current, the second current fails to meet the threshold current, wherein the second current failing to meet the threshold current indicates a volume of the liquid is less than the threshold volume of the liquid (refer to par. 55, wherein if the detected constant power consumption value P is lower than the reference value P, this means that a critical filling state in the pan has not yet been reached, and continuing operation would thus only unnecessarily consume energy, while still not requiring any evaporation power). Regarding claim 27, Keller meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 26. Further, Keller discloses preventing power from being supplied to the heating element based on determining the second current fails to meet the threshold current (refer to par. 62, step S7, wherein during the continued operation of the PTC heating element 50, it is checked in step S7 via the detection unit 58, the comparison unit 60 and the decision unit 62 whether the power consumption value P falls below the predetermined deactivation power consumption value P, and if this is the case, the PTC heating element 50 is deactivated in step S8 via the activating unit 56 (the thermistor includes the heating element as can be seen from fig. 2)). Regarding claim 28, Keller meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 26. Further, Keller discloses wherein a decrease from the first current to the second current corresponds to an increase in temperature experienced by the thermistor, wherein the increase in temperature raises a resistance of the thermistor, and wherein the increase in temperature indicates the volume of the liquid is less than the threshold volume of the liquid (refer to fig. 5, step S7, and paras. 11 and 18, the resistance is dependent on the temperature surrounding the heating element and increases or decreases linearly with the temperature in the specific temperature range; the faster the ambient temperature of the heating element changes, the faster its resistance value also changes, and if the heating element is now surrounded by the liquid collected in the pan, the resistance value changes significantly less than if the heating element is not in contact with the liquid, therefore, a decrease from the first current to the second current corresponds to an increase in temperature experienced by the thermistor). Regarding claim 33, Keller meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 22. Further, Keller discloses wherein the thermistor (PTC heating element 50) includes the heating element (43 as can be seen from fig. 2). Regarding claim 44, Keller discloses an evaporation tray (42) for condensation water, in particular for a refrigerator (10), comprising: an electric heater (43) adapted to generate heat when it is electrically powered, arranged so as to heat the water contained in the tray, in particular to evaporate the water; a positive temperature coefficient (PTC) (refer to PTC heating element 50) adapted to be electrically powered, arranged inside the tray so as to be wetted by the water contained in the tray (refer to fig. 1), adapted to operate as a sensor for the presence of water in the tray; an electronic control unit (44) connected to the electric heater (43) and to the positive temperature coefficient (PTC, 50), configured to control, in particular to allow or prevent, an electric power supply of the electric heater (refer to fig. 2, and paras. 52-55, wherein the controller 44 comprises an activation unit 56 for activating and deactivating the thermistor 50 which includes the electric heater 43). Regarding claim 45, Keller meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 44. Further, Keller discloses wherein the electronic control unit (44) is configured to allow or prevent the electric power supply of the electric heater as a function of the electric power absorbed by the positive temperature coefficient (PTC) (refer to paras. 52-55, wherein the controller 44 comprises an activation unit 56 for activating and deactivating the thermistor 50, a detection unit 58 for detecting at least a parameter from the thermistor, such as a power consumption value P of the thermistor, a comparison unit 60 for comparing the detected operating parameter with a predetermined reference value, and a decision unit 62 for deciding whether the thermistor should be operated or deactivated further). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANA M VAZQUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-0611. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-4. 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. /ANA M VAZQUEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 21, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 07, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601529
METHOD TO CHARGE MULTIPLE REFRIGERANTS WITH DESIRED CONCENTRATIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595946
THERMAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AND CONTROL METHOD FOR THERMAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595978
DRAIN SYSTEM FOR ECS WATER COLLECTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12590759
REMOVING HEAVY HYDROCARBONS TO PREVENT DEFROST SHUTDOWNS IN LNG PLANTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12590738
HEAT PUMP SYSTEMS WITH PRESSURE EXCHANGERS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
80%
Grant Probability
97%
With Interview (+17.3%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 857 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month