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 .
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-7, drawn to a method of making ice, classified in F25C2400/14
II. Claims 8-20, drawn to an apparatus for making ice, classified in F25C5/04.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. For example, the apparatus can have an opening where water is introduced by pouring water from a reservoir into the mold all at once and the water is frozen while remaining stagnant within the mold instead of circulating through the mold.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
The groupings of patentably distinct inventions above have acquired a separate status in the art due to their different classification and their above recognized divergent subject matter which would require a different field of search including searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources. Further prior art applicable to one group of claims would not necessarily be applicable to another. This is strong evidence that a search and/or examination burden would apply if restriction was not required.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Kristen Hansen on January 20, 2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of II, claims 8-20. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 1-7 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: For continuity of the claims, the words, “of the one or more molds” should be inserted after the words, “each mold”. The words, “of the first and second mold portions” should be inserted after the words, “one mold portion”. The words, “of the first and second mold portions” should be inserted after the words, “another mold portion”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: For continuity of the claims, the words, “of the one or more molds” should be inserted after the words, “each mold”.
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 10 and 18 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 10 recites the limitation "therein" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim and it is unclear what structure the ice shape is to be dispensed from. For the purposes of examination, the examiner is going to treat the claim as if it read, “the second mold portion, while the mold carriage coupled to the first mold portion further axially translates and rotationally translates to dispense the ice shape
Claim 18 recites the limitation "therein" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim and it is unclear if the aperture is to be defined in the one or more molds, or the flow insert. For the purposes of examination, the examiner is going to treat the claim as if it read, “the one or more molds comprises a flow insert defining one or more apertures within the flow insert, such that fluid flow rate is tunable.”.
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.
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.
Claim limitation “movement module” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “module” coupled with functional language “axially translate one mold portion and the ejector module relative to another mold portion and rotationally translate one mold portion relative to the other mold portion” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claims 8 and 11-20 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Note claim 9 recites sufficient structure for performing the function and as such, the term
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
movement module → a rail, a mold carriage coupled to the first mold portion, and an ejector carriage
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
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 8-13 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US9581372 to Lee et al., hereinafter referred to as Lee, in view of US2017/0082338 to Wobrock et al., hereinafter referred to as Wobrock.
In reference to claim 8, Lee and Wobrock disclose the claimed invention including:
Lee discloses a system (10) for creating clear ice, the system comprising:
an ice forming module comprising one or more molds (each cell is considered one mold) coupled to a cooling apparatus (30), wherein each mold comprises a first mold portion (12) and a second mold portion (11);
an ejector module (192) comprising one or more ejector pins that are each reversibly insertable into one of the one or more molds to dislodge an ice shape that is formed in the one or more molds (see figure 9); and
a movement module (111, 117, 21, etc. collectively comprise the movement module) configured to:
axially translate the ejector module (192) relative to another mold portion (11), and
rotationally translate one mold portion (12) relative to the other mold portion (11).
With respect to the preamble recitation of creating clear ice, if the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction, see MPEP 2111.02 (II). Since creating clear ice is the intended use of the cooling system and the body of the claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed cooling system, the preamble recitation of creating clear ice is not considered to be of any significance to the claim construction.
Lee fails to disclose the movement module axially translating one mold portion relative to another mold portion.
Wobrock teaches that it is a known method in the art of ice making to provide an ice maker with a movement module (322, 316, 312, 318, etc.) that is configured to axially translate (via 316) one mold portion (304) relative to another mold portion (302), and rotationally translate (via 322) one mold portion (304) relative to the other mold portion (302), see figure 5-6. This method allows the ice to be released from the bottom mold a lower position nearer an ice bin which would advantageously prevent damage to the ice from a higher release. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, to modify Lee by Wobrok such that, the movement module axially translates one mold portion relative to another mold portion since all claimed elements were known in the art, and one having ordinary skill in the art could have modified the prior art as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded a predictable result of preventing damage to ice by releasing the ice to the bin at a lower position.
In reference to claim 9, Lee and Wobrock disclose the claimed invention including:
Lee discloses a movement module comprises: a rail (111), a mold carriage (15) coupled to the first mold portion (12), and an ejector carriage (191), the mold carriage (15) and the ejector carriage (191) translate axially along the rail (112), and wherein movement of the mold carriage (15) and the ejector carriage (191) along the rail (11) occurs substantially simultaneously, see figure 6.
In reference to claim 10, Lee and Wobrock disclose the claimed invention including:
Lee discloses the rail (111) comprises a stop (bottom surface of guide hole 112) thereon such that the ejector carriage (191) is prevented from further axial movement once the ice shape is ejected from the second mold portion (11), while the mold carriage (15) coupled to the first mold portion (12). Wobrock discloses the mold carriage (312) coupled to the first mold portion (304) further axially translates and rotationally translates to dispense the ice shape therein (see figures 5-7) Accordingly, when modifying Lee by Wobrock as applied in 8 supra, the limitations of claim 10 would be met by the combination.
In reference to claim 11, Lee and Wobrock disclose the claimed invention including:
Lee discloses the rotational translation comprises clockwise rotation of about 45 degrees to about 180 degrees relative to the second mold portion (as seen in figure 9).
In reference to claim 12, Lee and Wobrock disclose the claimed invention including:
Lee discloses the rotational translation comprises counterclockwise rotation of about 45 degrees to about 180 degrees relative to the second mold portion. Note that when viewed from the side opposite the view of fig 9, the rotation would appear to be counterclockwise.
In reference to claim 13, Lee and Wobrock disclose the claimed invention including:
Lee discloses the second mold portion (11) is reversibly couplable to the first mold portion (12) along a vertical axis or an engagement plane that is perpendicular to the cooling apparatus (30), see figure 9.
In reference to claim 18, Lee and Wobrock disclose the claimed invention including:
Lee discloses at least a subset of the one or more molds comprises a flow insert (114) defining one or more apertures (115) therein, such that fluid flow rate is tunable. It should be noted that the claim does not further specify, define, or limit what, if any, additional structure is required in order to be "tunable" beyond that previously recited, of which Lee includes, as detailed above.
In reference to claims 19 and 20, Lee and Wobrock disclose the claimed invention including:
Lee discloses the first (12) and second (11) mold portions are movable relative to one another, as seen in figures 1 and 2.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-17 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CASSEY D BAUER whose telephone number is (571)270-7113. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs: 10AM-8PM (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, Frantz Jules can be reached at 571-272-6681. 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.
/CASSEY D BAUER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/FRANTZ F JULES/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763