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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/29/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 2 and 13-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recite the limitation “the support system” in line 1. There is antecedent basis for this limitation. For examination purposes, the limitation is being considered as -- the support assembly --.
Claim 13 recite the limitation “separator plates” in line 1. separator plates renders the claim indefinite because only separator plate is required in the claim 1.
Claim 14 there is a period after the phrase “a second connection point. a scaffolding” in line 3.
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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of r ejection 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 depends on may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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 1-12, 14-17 and 19-20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chu (US 2009/0152438) in view of Mcelvaney (WO 0070282A1, see attached doc.).
In regards to claim 1, Chu discloses a system for making clear ice (system generates clear ice cubes; par. 2; Figs. 1-7) comprising: an insulated cooler (heat isolation cooler housing 30) having insulated walls (heat isolation walls) forming a cavity (a space 31); a support assembly (protrusions 21 and two hooks 13 on inner box 20) located in the cavity (as can be seen in Figs. 3-4 and 7) formed with a first connection point (point at left protrusion 21 point) and a second connection point (point at right protrusion 21 point); a scaffolding assembly (corresponding to outer box assembly 20) having at least one separator plate (plate made up the outer box 20 which separates the cooler housing 30 and inner box ice tray 10) extending from the first connection point (point at left protrusion 21 point) to the second connection point (point at right protrusion 21 point); and an ice mold (ice cube tray made with a partition member 40 by placing in the inner box 10), located on the at least one separator plate (20), but fails to explicitly teach wherein the support assembly is configured to adjust a location of the at least one separator plate.
Mcelvaney teaches an apparatus (Figs. 1-2) wherein the support assembly (corresponding to clip 4 with an elongate slot 5 assembly) is configured to adjust a location (adjustable in height location or dimensions; page 6, lines 15-23) of the at least one separator plate (corresponding to bin 1).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Chu such that the support assembly is configured to adjust a location of the at least one separator plate as taught by Mcelvaney in order to alter the separation between the wall sections to enlarge or reduce the storage volume (refer to page 3, lines 7-9 of Mcelvaney).
In regards to claim 2, Chu as modified meets the claim limitations as set forth above in the rejection of claim 1, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the support system includes a ladder assembly having a first wall formed with the first connection point and a second wall formed with the second connection point.
Mcelvaney further teaches wherein the support system (corresponding to clip 4 with an elongate slot 5 assembly) includes a ladder assembly (panel 6 with elongate protrusions 7 assembly) having a first wall (wall of right plate 6) formed with the first connection point (point at right wall connecting of clip 4 and plate 6; Figs. 1-2) and a second wall (wall of left plate 6) formed with the second connection point (point at left wall connecting of clip 4 and plate 6; Figs. 1-2).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Chu such that the support system includes a ladder assembly having a first wall formed with the first connection point and a second wall formed with the second connection point as taught by Mcelvaney in order to alter the separation between the wall sections to enlarge or reduce the storage volume (refer to page 3, lines 7-9 of Mcelvaney).
In regards to claim 3, Chu as modified meets the claim limitations as set forth above in the rejection of claim 1. Further, Chu teaches wherein the ice mold (10) has a bottom wall that is formed with holes (inner box ice tray 10 includes a plurality of holes 11; par. 20) configured to allow minerals and dissolved air to pass during freezing (refer to par. 20).
In regards to claim 4, Chu as modified meets the claim limitations as set forth above in the rejection of claim 3. Further, Chu teaches wherein the ice mold (10/40) has four side walls arranged to have a cross section that is shaped as square, has corners, and is configured to produce ice in the shape of a cube (different sizes and shapes that includes square shape cube; par. 9; Fig. 5).
In regards to claim 5, Chu as modified meets the claim limitations as set forth above in the rejection of claim 4. Further, Chu teaches wherein the bottom wall has at least one hole (11) formed in each of the corners (refer to par. 20; Figs. 4-5).
In regards to claim 6, Chu as modified meets the claim limitations as set forth above in the rejection of claim 5. Further, Chu teaches wherein the bottom wall has a hole (11) formed in a center of the bottom wall (refer to par. 20; Figs. 4-5).
In regards to claim 7, Chu as modified meets the claim limitations as set forth above in the rejection of claim 3. Further, Chu teaches wherein the bottom wall has a hole (11) formed in a center of the bottom wall (refer to par. 20; Figs. 4-5).
In regards to claim 8, Chu as modified meets the claim limitations as set forth above in the rejection of claim 4. Further, Chu teaches wherein the ice mold (10/40) has walls shaped to form various shapes (different sizes and shapes; par. 9; Fig. 5).
In regards to claim 9, Chu as modified meets the claim limitations as set forth above in the rejection of claim 7. Further, Chu teaches wherein the ice mold (10/40) has walls shaped to form various shapes (different sizes and shapes; par. 9; Fig. 5).
In regards to claim 10, Chu as modified meets the claim limitations as set forth above in the rejection of claim 9. Further, Chu teaches wherein the various shapes (different shapes; par. 9) include one of a Christmas tree, a dragon, and a skull (different sizes and shapes that includes one of a Christmas tree, a dragon, and a skull; par. 9; Fig. 5).
In regards to claim 11, Chu as modified meets the claim limitations as set forth above in the rejection of claim 2. Further, Mcelvaney teaches wherein the ladder assembly (panel 6 with elongate protrusions 7 assembly) has vertically spaced connectors (elongate protrusions 7), (Figs. 1-2) configured to support the scaffolding assembly (1) at different heights (adjustable in height location or dimensions; page 6, lines 15-23).
In regards to claim 12, Chu as modified meets the claim limitations as set forth above in the rejection of claim 11. Further, Mcelvaney teaches where the ladder assembly (panel 6 with elongate protrusions 7 assembly) is configured to adjust the scaffolding assembly (adjustable in height location or dimensions; page 6, lines 15-23) to allow water with a high mineral content pass below the separator plate.
In regards to claim 14, Chu discloses a method for making clear ice with a system (method and system generates clear ice cubes; par. 2; Figs. 1-7) including an insulated cooler (heat isolation cooler housing 30) having insulated walls (heat isolation walls) forming a cavity (a space 31), a support system (protrusions 21 and two hooks 13 on outer box 20) located in the cavity (as can be seen in Figs. 3-4 and 7) having a first connection point (point at left protrusion 21 point) and a second connection point (point at right protrusion 21 point). a scaffolding assembly (corresponding to outer box assembly 20) having at least one separator plate (plate made up the outer box 20 which separates the cooler housing 30 and inner box ice tray 10) extending from the first connection point (point at left protrusion 21 point) to the second connection point (point at right protrusion 21 point), said method comprising: placing the support system (21/13) in the cavity (31); adding water (as shown in Fig. 4; par. 23); cooling air above the cooler (refer to par. 24); and directionally cooling the water for form ice above the at least one separator plate (refer to par. 24). Chu fails to explicitly teach adjusting a height of at least one separator plate along the support system.
Mcelvaney teaches a method and system (Figs. 1-2) wherein adjusting a height (adjustable in height location or dimensions of bins 1; page 6, lines 15-23) of at least one separator plate (corresponding to bin 1) along the support system (corresponding to clip 4 with an elongate slot 5 assembly).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of of Chu such that adjusting a height of at least one separator plate along the support system as taught by Mcelvaney in order to alter the separation between the wall sections to enlarge or reduce the storage volume (refer to page 3, lines 7-9 of Mcelvaney).
In regards to claim 15, Chu as modified meets the claim limitations as set forth above in the rejection of claim 14. Further, Chu teaches further comprising allowing minerals and dissolved air in the water to pass through holes (inner box ice tray 10 includes a plurality of holes 11; par. 20) in a bottom wall of an ice mold (inner box ice tray 10).
In regards to claim 16, Chu as modified meets the claim limitations as set forth above in the rejection of claim 15. Further, Chu teaches further comprising producing ice in a shape of a cube (different sizes and shapes that includes cube shape; par. 9; Fig. 5).
In regards to claim 17, Chu as modified meets the claim limitations as set forth above in the rejection of claim 16. Further, Mcelvaney teaches further comprising adjusting the scaffolding assembly (adjustable in height location or dimensions of bins 1; page 6, lines 15-23) to allow water with a high mineral content pass below the at least one separator plate.
In regards to claim 19, Chu as modified meets the claim limitations as set forth above in the rejection of claim 14. Further, Chu teaches further comprising separating the support system (at gap S) to retrieve the clear ice (refer to par. 24).
In regards to claim 20, Chu as modified meets the claim limitations as set forth above in the rejection of claim 14. Further, Mcelvaney teaches wherein the support system is a ladder assembly (panel 6 with elongate protrusions 7 assembly) and adjusting the height of the at least one separator plate (adjustable in height location or dimensions of bins 1; page 6, lines 15-23) along the support system (corresponding to clip 4 with an elongate slot 5 assembly) includes lifting or lowering the separator plate (1) and connecting the separator plate to the ladder assembly (as can be seen in Figs. 1-2 of Mcelvaney).
Claims 13 and 18 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chu (US 2009/0152438) in view of Mcelvaney (WO 0070282A1), further in view of Sputtek et al. (US 5935848).
In regards to claim 13, Chu as modified meets the claim limitations as set forth above in the rejection of claim 1, but fails to explicitly teach wherein separator plates of the scaffolding assembly a formed of a porous material that allows air and minerals to pass therethrough. Sputtek teaches a freezing container (Figs. 1 and 3) wherein separator plates (plates 14 and 16) of the scaffolding assembly a formed of a porous material (microporous layer 30) that allows air and minerals to pass therethrough (see abstract).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Chu such that separator plates of the scaffolding assembly a formed of a porous material that allows air and minerals to pass therethrough as taught by Sputtek in order to increases heat transfer to the coolant that surrounds the container is secured to the outer side of plates (refer to abstract of Sputtek).
In regards to claim 18, Chu as modified meets the claim limitations as set forth above in the rejection of claim 14, but fails to explicitly teach further comprising allowing air and minerals to pass through porous material of the scaffolding assembly.
Sputtek teaches a freezing container (Figs. 1 and 3) further comprising allowing air and minerals to pass through porous material (microporous layer 30) of the scaffolding assembly (plates 14 and 16).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Chu such that further comprising allowing air and minerals to pass through porous material of the scaffolding assembly as taught by Sputtek in order to increases heat transfer to the coolant that surrounds the container is secured to the outer side of plates (refer to abstract of Sputtek).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARTHA TADESSE whose telephone number is (571)272-0590. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30am-5:00pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Frantz Jules can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For
more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/M.T/
Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights