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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3 and 6-11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5, 7, and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,050,049 (hereafter “the reference patent”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all limitations of the instant claims are included within the narrower scopes of the corresponding claims of the reference patent.
Reference claim 1 teaches limitations from instant claim 1, a fluid dispensing system for an appliance (taught in the reference claim as “a shelving assembly for an appliance” (preamble in lines 42-43 of col. 10, this assembly comprising “a fluid dispensing system coupled to the shelf” as taught in line 47 of col. 10), the fluid dispensing system comprising:
a shelf (taught in line 44 of col. 10, with the fluid dispensing system of line 47 being taught to be “coupled to the shelf” in that line) that is configured to be disposed within an appliance cabinet, wherein the shelf includes a top surface for storing items thereon (taught in lines 44-46 of col. 10);
a shelf spigot that is coupled to an underside of the shelf, the shelf spigot configured to be attached to a fluid source of the appliance cabinet, the shelf spigot configured to deliver fluid from the fluid source and to a fill zone positioned below the underside of the shelf (taught in col. 10, lines 51-55)
a rail assembly disposed on the underside of the shelf for securing a fluid container to the underside of the shelf and within the fill zone, wherein the rail assembly selectively supports the fluid container from above (taught in col. 10, lines 56-59); and
a weight sensor that is coupled with at least one of the shelf and the rail assembly, wherein the weight sensor senses a weight of the fluid container and contents of the fluid container, the weight sensor being in operable communication with the shelf spigot (taught as “a load cell” rather than “a weight sensor” in col. 10, lines 60-65, with col. 10, lines 61-62 teaching that “the load cell senses a weight of the fluid container”, thus teaching it as “a weight sensor” as claimed).
Reference claim 1 teaches limitations from instant claim 2, the fluid dispensing system of claim 1, wherein the weight sensor is a load cell (as discussed above, the reference claim teaches “a load cell” where the instant claim teaches “a weight sensor” but teaches identical placement and function for these elements, including teaching that the load cell senses a weight of the container” and is thus a weight sensor).
Reference claim 1 teaches limitations from instant claim 3, the fluid dispensing system of claim 1, wherein the weight sensor is attached to the rail assembly (the reference claim teaching in lines 60-61 that the load cell is “coupled with one of the shelf and the rail assembly”, with emphasis by examiner).
Reference claim 2 teaches limitations from instant claim 6, the fluid dispensing system of claim 1, wherein the shelf spigot extends through a portion of the weight sensor (in col. 10, lines 66-67, with language identical to the instant claim except for the preamble and the narrower term “load cell” where the instant claim recites a “weight sensor”, the distinction between these elements discussed above with regard to claim 1).
Reference claim 3 teaches limitations from instant claim 7, the fluid dispensing system of claim 1, wherein the shelf spigot includes an elongated housing that cooperatively engages a lid of the fluid container, wherein the rail assembly is configured to support the fluid container and position an opening of the fluid container in the fill zone (in col. 11, lines 1-5, with language identical to the instant claim besides the preamble with is discussed above with regard to instant claim 1).
Reference claim 4 teaches limitations from instant claim 8, The fluid dispensing system of claim 1, wherein the shelf spigot includes a plurality of fluid ports, wherein each fluid port defines dedicated portions of the fill zone, and wherein each fluid port and each of the dedicated portions of the fill zone are configured to respectively receive any one fluid container of a plurality of fluid containers (in col. 11, lines 6-11, with language identical to the instant claim besides the preamble with is discussed above with regard to instant claim 1).
Reference claim 5 teaches limitations from instant claim 9, The fluid dispensing system of claim 8, wherein each fluid port includes a dedicated weight sensor (in col. 11, lines 12-13, with language identical to the instant claim except for the preamble and the narrower term “load cell” where the instant claim recites a “weight sensor”, the distinction between these elements discussed above with regard to claim 1).
Reference claim 7 teaches limitations from instant claim 10, The fluid dispensing system of claim 1, wherein the shelf is configured to be coupled with an inner liner of the appliance cabinet and the fluid dispensing system is configured to be coupled with a fluid delivery system at the inner liner (in col. 11, lines 21-24, with language identical to the instant claim besides the preamble with is discussed above with regard to instant claim 1).
Reference claim 8 teaches limitations from instant claim 11, The fluid dispensing system of claim 1, wherein the weight sensor includes a plurality of sensors spaced throughout the rail assembly, wherein the weight of the fluid container and the contents of the fluid container are configured to be distributed evenly among the plurality of sensors to determine whether the fluid container is properly installed (in col. 11, lines 25-30, with language identical to the instant claim except for the preamble and the narrower term “load cell” where the instant claim recites a “weight sensor”, the distinction between these elements discussed above with regard to claim 1).
Although they depend upon claim 1, instant claims 4 and 5 are not rejected as presenting double patenting as each includes limitations which are not present in reference claim 1 or any of the claims depending therefrom. These limitations are: in claim 4, the recitation of the shelf spigot extending through a portion of the rail assembly; and in claim 5, the teaching of the weight sensor’s communication with and control of a valve of the shelf spigot.
Likewise, each of independent instant claims 12 and 16 (and thus the claims which depend from them) includes at least one limitation which is not present in any of the claims of the reference patent and are not subject to rejection based on the principle of double patenting. These limitations are: in claim 12, the plurality of shelf spigots extending through the rail assembly; and in claim 16, the weight sensor cooperating with a controller and the shelf spigot to regulate the flow of fluid.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-20 are allowed.
Claims 4 and 5 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 1-3 and 6-11 are considered to read over the prior art of record because the prior art of record does not teach or suggest the claimed combination of features including an appliance having a rail assembly for supporting a container from above in a space under a shelf and in contact with a weight sensor, the shelf having a spigot for delivering fluid to the container. However, this claim cannot be considered "allowable" at this time due to the double patenting rejections set forth in this Office Action. Therefore upon the claims being rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112 set forth in this Office Action, further consideration of this claim with respect to the prior art will be necessary.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Publication No. 2007/0278141 A1 to Patera teaches a water dispenser system for a refrigerator (100) in figs. 8 and 9C, shown below, the dispenser system (1) supporting a pitcher (15) from above and providing it with water from a valve or tap (92) when a level sensor using a magnetic float (10) and reed switch (24) determines the pitcher (15) not to be full. Patera does not teach the use of a weight sensor for this determination, or the pitcher being supported by a rail assembly on the underside of a shelf as the pitcher of Patera’s invention is shown instead to be suspended from a support mounted on the ceiling of a refrigerator compartment rather than the underside of a shelf as taught in the instant independent claims.
PNG
media_image1.png
668
492
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
250
470
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
332
404
media_image3.png
Greyscale
European Publication No. 1752723 A2 to Fusi et al. (a copy of which was provided by Applicant with the Information Disclosure Statement of 24 June 2024) teaches in fig. 2, shown above, a refrigerator (1) having a cabinet (2) formed therein and provided with a shelf (10) below which is provided a cock (100) “to facilitate drink dispensing” but does not teach the shelf including a rail assembly for supporting a container to be filled by the cock or a weight sensor for sensing the weight of the container in communication with this cock as taught the instant claims.
US Patent No. 3,024,621 to Parker teaches in fig. 1, shown below, a refrigerator (10) having therein a plurality of shelves (26), one of which is provided with a spigot (numbered 38 in the disclosure of Parker but obscured by an error in the figure) for providing water obtained from a water supply line (14) via a flexible conduit (28) but does not teach a weight sensor or any other water level sensor for a container to be filled by this spigot to be in communication with the spigot, or a rail system for supporting the container from above in a space below the shelf to be filled by the spigot.
PNG
media_image4.png
528
416
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
716
372
media_image5.png
Greyscale
US Publication No. 2017/0137277 A1 to Comsa et al. teaches in fig. 2, shown above, a refrigerator having an automatic liquid dispenser system installed in a door (16A) thereof, the system including a shelf (24) for supporting a water pitcher (20) in contact with a spout (32) and a sensor (40) for detecting the level of water in the pitcher (20) and actuating the spout (32) to provide water to the pitcher (20). Comsa further teaches in ¶ 32 that this sensor may detect one of a number of properties of the pitcher to determine the presence or amount of liquid within it, these properties including optical properties, or the weight of the pitcher. Comsa does not teach a rail system provided under the shelf for supporting the pitcher from above, or the spout being coupled to an underside of the shelf as taught in the instant independent claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL C COMINGS whose telephone number is (571)270-7385. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 AM to 5 PM.
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.
/DANIEL C COMINGS/ Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763