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 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:
a packing portion (disclosed in the specification as element 130) in claims 1-2 and 6;
a packing member (disclosed in the specification as element 131) in claims 1, 3, 4-5, and 7; and
a fixing member (disclosed in the specification as element 132) in claims 1-5.
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 7-12 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.
Regarding claim 7, it is unclear what is meant by the phrase “above the head portion to cover portion an open upper surface”. The claim also recites an “extended” handle. It is unclear what length of handle would or would not be considered to be “extended”. For examination purposes, any handle that is located above an upper surface of a packing member will be considered to meet the limitations of the claim.
Regarding claims 8-12, the claims are rejected due to depending from claim 7.
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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaga (US 2007/0006606) in view of Kawada (JP 2004-101108, see attached English translation) and Knatt (US 2021/0222937).
As to claim 1, Kaga teaches a feed tank 33 equipped with a packing structure of a float sensor 38, the feed tank comprising:
a feed tank 33 including a storage portion provided with a storage space in which ice-making water is stored (Fig. 1); and
a float sensor 38 inserted at a top of the feed tank 33 and detecting a level of the ice-making water (Fig. 1).
Kaga is silent regarding a detachable cover portion for the feed tank 33, a packing portion with a hollow a packing member that penetrates the cover, or a fixing member extending in a spiral direction along an inner circumferential surface of the packing member as claimed.
However, Kawada teaches that it is known to utilize a detachable lid member 26/126 for an ice maker feed tank (Figs. 3-4). As such it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Kaga to utilize a detachable lid as claimed and taught by Kawada in order to allow for ease of access for maintenance in the interior of the feed tank.
Additionally, Knatt teaches that it is known to utilize a packing portion with a hollow packing member 122 provided to penetrated a cover of a feed tank and a fixing member 130 extending in a spiral direction along an inner circumferential surface of the packing member 122, wherein a float sensor 90 is inserted into the packing portion (Figs. 5-6 and 8-12). Such a configuration allows for ease of maintenance and repair of the ice maker (Knatt, paragraph 32). Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Kaga to be configured in the manner as claimed and taught by Knatt in order to facilitate ease of maintenance of the feed tank.
As to claim 2, the float sensor of the modified apparatus is rotated to be fixed to or separated from the packing portion (Knatt, Figs 10-12).
As to claim 3, the fixing member of the modified apparatus is provided to surround a portion of an outer circumferential surface of the float sensor inside the packing member (Knatt, Fig. 10).
As to claims 4-5, the fixing member of Knatt includes portions 130 and 126 utilized to fix the sensor in place (Figs. 5-6 and 8-12) and therefore is equivalent to the claimed fixing member of the instant application.
As to claim 6, Kaga teaches a float sensor 38 with a head portion, body portion, and lifting portion as claimed (Fig. 1).
As to claim 7, Knatt teaches a handle portion 222 above the head portion of the sensor (Fig. 10).
As to claim 8, Knatt teaches use of recesses 228 and protrusions 126 (Fig. 10).
As to claim 9, Knatt teaches a support member 220 (Fig. 10).
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaga, Kawada, and Knatt as applied in the rejections above, and further in view of Gu (CN 114597701, see attached English translation).
As to claim 10, the modified apparatus is silent regarding a sealing recess and sealing member as claimed. However, Gu teaches that it is known to use a sealing recess 222 an a sealing member 223 for a sensor that is mounted by insertion (Fig. 3). Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to further modify Kaga such that the sensor includes a sealing ring and recess as claimed and taught by Gu in order to prevent leakage of stored water.
As to claim 11, the modified apparatus includes most of the claimed limitations as discussed above, and further Kaga teaches an ice generating unit 21 and an ice storage portion as claimed (paragraph 40).
As to claim 12, the ice generating unit of Kaga includes a hollow cylinder 21, an auger 23 in the cylinder 21, and a refrigerant pipe 15 surrounding the cylinder 21 with a refrigerant inlet and outlet at opposite ends of the cylinder 21 (Fig. 1; paragraphs 39-40).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN BRADFORD whose telephone number is (571)270-5199. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 - 4:00 ET.
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.
/JONATHAN BRADFORD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763