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 10/23/2024 was filed on or after the mailing date of the application. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: at least reference character 19 identified in 0026; reference character 20 identified in 0025; reference character 85 identified in 0043. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “86” has been used to designate both communication line in fig 2 and a rack in fig 3. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract speaks to the merits of the invention. Additionally, the abstract contains line numbers which are not a part of the abstract. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: circulation means in claim 1, 11, 15,20, 22 and 24;
Refrigeration means in claim 1, 20, 22 and 24;
Heating means in claims 2, 3, 12,20, 22;
Delivery means in claim 17 and 24.
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:
Circulation means appear to be described as a circulation conduit and circulation pump in at least 0025 of the specification;
Refrigeration means appear to be described as a refrigeration compressor and a hot gas bypass valve in 0028 of the specification;
Heating means appear to be described as an electric heater and/or a thermoelectric module in 0031 of the specification;
Delivery means appear to be described as at least a support arm 78 in 0043.
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
35 USC § 112(b) statement
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 12, 13, 20, 21 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 Claims 12 and 20, the term “substantially” in the claims is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
35 USC § 112(d) statement
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 13 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding Claim 13, claim 13 depends from claim 12 where the ice removed consists of a single slab of ice. However, claim 13 purports to have where the ice removed consists of ice cubes. It is unclear how a slab of ice can be construed to be ice cubes. Thus, claim 13 does not properly further limit claim 12.
Regarding Claim 21, claim 21 depends from claim 20 where the ice removed consists of a single slab of ice. However, claim 21 purports to have where the ice removed consists of ice cubes. It is unclear how a slab of ice can be construed to be ice cubes. Thus, claim 21 does not properly further limit claim 20.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7, 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitou (JPS61287405A) in view of Ogata (JPH0447581Y2).
Regarding Claim 1, Kitou teaches an apparatus for purifying raw water from a raw water source [0001; 0002], the apparatus comprising:
a raw water collection tank [2] for holding raw water having impurities [0005];
a freezing surface [5; 0006];
circulation means [8, 8a] for flowing raw water from the raw water collection tank over the freezing surface [0006];
refrigeration means [18, 21] for regulating a temperature of the freezing surface to cause an ice mass to grow by freezing a portion of the raw water as the raw water flows over the freezing surface, wherein an unfrozen portion of the raw water which flows over the freezing surface transports impurities in the ice mass away from the ice mass, and to cause the ice mass to separate from the freezing surface [0007-0010]; and
an ice receptacle [3] arranged to receive the ice mass after the ice mass separates from the freezing surface [0005; 0008];
wherein the raw water collection tank [2] is arranged to receive the unfrozen portion of the raw water such that the unfrozen portion of the raw water is recirculated by the circulation means to again flow over the freezing surface [0006-0009];
wherein the ice mass in the ice receptacle is available for melting to provide purified water [0005-0008].
Kitou does not teach where the ice receptacle is positioned above the raw water collection tank.
However, Ogata teaches an ice machine [0001; fig 1] having where an ice receptacle [9] is positioned above ta raw water collection tank [5; 0007; 0008; fig 1] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. provide a structure whereby melted ice water can be recycled to a water making tank and thereby improve the efficiency of the system [see fig 1].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Kitou to have where the ice receptacle is positioned above the raw water collection tank in view of the teachings of Ogata where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. provide a structure whereby melted ice water can be recycled to a water making tank and thereby improve the efficiency of the system.
Regarding Claim 2, Kitou, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 above and Kitou teaches heating means [15] associated with the ice receptacle for transferring heat to the ice receptacle [0007].
Regarding Claim 3, Kitou, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 2 above and Kitou teaches wherein the ice receptacle is configured to hold liquid, wherein the heating means is operable to melt the ice mass received by the receptacle to provide purified water held in the ice receptacle [0007].
Regarding Claim 7, Kitou, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 above and Kitou teaches a raw water inlet conduit [at 7a] in communication with the raw water collection tank [2] for conveying raw water into the raw water collection tank [0006].
Regarding Claim 10, Kitou, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 8 above and Kitou teaches an ice release sensor [10] configured and arranged to sense separation of the ice mass from the freezing surface [0010] and electronic control circuitry connected to the ice release sensor, wherein the electronic control circuitry is configured to turn on the inlet feed pump in response to a separation signal from the ice sensor [0009; 0011].
Regarding Claim 11, Kitou, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 10 above and Kitou teaches wherein the electronic control circuitry is configured to turn off the inlet feed pump and turn on the circulation means after a predetermined time period has elapsed [0010].
Claim(s) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitou et al. (JPS61287405A) and Ogata (JPH0447581Y2) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Braaten (US4572785).
Regarding Claim 4, Kitou, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 3 above and Kitou teaches a purified water outlet conduit [at 22; fig 1]in communication with the ice receptacle [3; 0007]. Kitou does not teach an outlet pump operable to pump purified water from the ice receptacle through the purified water outlet conduit.
However, Braaten teaches a device for purifying water [col 1, lines 5-10] having an outlet pump [68] operable to pump purified water from an ice receptacle [66] through the purified water outlet conduit [ending at spigot 112; col 4, lines 41-64; col 6, lines 37-41; figs 1 & 3] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. provide a structure whereby pure water can be supplied to a user [see fig 3].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Kitou to have an outlet pump operable to pump purified water from the ice receptacle through the purified water outlet conduit in view of the teachings of Braaten where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. provide a structure whereby pure water can be supplied to a user.
Regarding Claim 5, Kitou, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 4 above and Braaten teaches a user-operable switch [at 114] for selectively activating the purified water outlet pump [implicitly at col 6, lines 37-41].
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitou et al. (JPS61287405A), Ogata (JPH0447581Y2) and Braaten (US4572785) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Pichler (US2982113).
Regarding Claim 6, Kitou, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 4 above whereas Kitou teaches a purified water outlet, Kitou does not teach wherein an end of the purified water outlet conduit is located in the ice receptacle at a predetermined vertical distance from a bottom of the ice receptacle.
However, Pichler teaches an ice making apparatus [fig 3] having wherein an end of a water outlet conduit [99] is located in an ice receptacle [96] at a predetermined vertical distance from a bottom of the ice receptacle [by inspection at fig 3; see also col 6, lines 21-48] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. provide a structure whereby the water outlet conduit would allow sediment to settle on the bottom of the ice receptacle and not flow through the conduit [see fig 3].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Kitou to have wherein an end of the purified water outlet conduit is located in the ice receptacle at a predetermined vertical distance from a bottom of the ice receptacle in view of the teachings of Pichler where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. provide a structure whereby the water outlet conduit would allow sediment to settle on the bottom of the ice receptacle and not flow through the conduit.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitou et al. (JPS61287405A) and Ogata (JPH0447581Y2) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of LaCoate (US4798061).
Regarding Claim 8, Kitou, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 7 above and whereas Kitou teaches a raw water inlet [7] that provides water into the raw water collection tank [0006], Kitou does not explicitly teach an inlet feed pump operable to pump raw water through the raw water inlet conduit.
However, LaCoate teaches an ice making device [col 1, lines 6-10] having an inlet feed pump [2] operable to pump raw water through a raw water inlet conduit [at 3; col 2, lines 56-66; fig 1] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. provide a structure that provides pressurized municipal water to the system [see fig 1].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Kitou to have an inlet feed pump operable to pump raw water through the raw water inlet conduit in view of the teachings of LaCoate where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. provide a structure that provides pressurized municipal water to the system.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitou et al. (JPS61287405A) and Ogata (JPH0447581Y2) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hamlin (US5112477).
Regarding Claim 9, Kitou, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 above but does not explicitly teach a raw water outlet conduit in communication with the raw water collection tank and a raw water outlet pump operable to pump raw water from the raw water collection tank through the raw water outlet conduit.
However, Hamlin teaches an apparatus for dispensing purified ice and water [col 1, lines 8-11] having a raw water outlet conduit [102, 106] in communication with a raw water collection tank [100] and a raw water outlet pump [102] operable to pump raw water from the raw water collection tank through the raw water outlet conduit [col 4, lines 35-52; fig 5] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. provide a structure that removes waste water from the system [see fig 5].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Kitou to have a raw water outlet conduit in communication with a raw water collection tank and a raw water outlet pump operable to pump raw water from the raw water collection tank through the raw water outlet conduit in view of the teachings of Hamlin where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. provide a structure that removes waste water from the system.
Claim(s) 12-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitou et al. (JPS61287405A) and Ogata (JPH0447581Y2) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Swanson et al. (US3625023).
Regarding Claim 12, Kitou, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 2 above and Kitou teaches wherein the heating means [16] transfers heat to an underside of the ice receptacle [0007]. Kitou does not explicitly teach wherein the ice mass received in the ice receptacle consists of a single slab of ice having a substantially uniform thickness.
However, Swanson teaches an ice maker [fig 1] having wherein an ice mass [25] received in the ice receptacle consists of a single slab of ice having a substantially uniform thickness [col 4, lines 35-52; fig 5] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. provides a system that produces large capacity of ice [col 2, lines 43-55].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Kitou to have wherein the ice mass received in the ice receptacle consists of a single slab of ice having a substantially uniform thickness in view of the teachings of Swanson where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. provides a system that produces large capacity of ice.
Regarding Claim 13, Kitou, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 12 above and Kitou teaches wherein the freezing surface defines a plurality of cubic freezing chambers, each of the plurality of cubic freezing chambers having five faces defined by the freezing surface and one open face [0007].
Regarding Claim 14, Kitou, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 above but does not teach wherein the freezing surface is inclined at an angle in a range from 10° through 20° relative to vertical.
However, Swanson teaches an ice maker [fig 1] having wherein the freezing surface is inclined at an angle in a range from 10° through 20° relative to vertical [col 1, lines 11-24] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. provides a system whereby ice can slide by gravity into the clean water tank [col 1, lines 11-24].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Kitou to have wherein the freezing surface is inclined at an angle in a range from 10° through 20° relative to vertical in view of the teachings of Swanson where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. provides a system whereby ice can slide by gravity into the clean water tank.
Regarding Claim 15, Kitou, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 above but does not teach a spray curtain proximate the freezing surface for preventing raw water flowing by the circulation means from entering the ice receptacle.
However, Swanson teaches an ice maker [fig 1] having a spray curtain proximate the freezing surface for preventing raw water flowing by the circulation means from entering the ice receptacle [col 2, lines 3-42] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. provides a system whereby excess water can flow to the sump and be recirculated [col 2, lines 3-42].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Kitou to have a spray curtain proximate the freezing surface for preventing raw water flowing by the circulation means from entering the ice receptacle in view of the teachings of Swanson where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. provides a system whereby excess water can flow to the sump and be recirculated.
Regarding Claim 16, Kitou, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 15 above and Swanson teaches wherein the spray curtain is resiliently deflectable to allow passage of the ice mass from the freezing surface to the ice receptacle [col 2, lines 3-42].
Claim(s) 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitou et al. (JPS61287405A) and Ogata (JPH0447581Y2) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bayston (US2542892).
Regarding Claim 17, Kitou teaches a housing [1] containing the raw water collection tank [2], the freezing surface [5], and the ice receptacle [3; see fig 1]. Kitou does not explicitly teach wherein the housing includes an ice delivery opening and the apparatus further comprises ice delivery means for delivering the ice mass through the ice delivery opening to an exterior of the housing.
However, Bayston teaches a machine for manufacturing ice [col 1, lines 1-6] having wherein a housing [15] includes an ice delivery opening [at least the opening at tray 41; see fig 2] and the apparatus further comprises ice delivery means [at least chute 42] for delivering the ice mass through the ice delivery opening to an exterior of the housing [col 4, lines 44-61] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. provides a system whereby ice is accessible to a user.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Kitou to have wherein the housing includes an ice delivery opening and the apparatus further comprises ice delivery means for delivering the ice mass through the ice delivery opening to an exterior of the housing in view of the teachings of Bayston where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. provides a system whereby ice is accessible to a user.
Regarding Claim 18, Kitou, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 17 above and Bayston teaches a container, wherein the container is configured for placement at a receiving location externally adjacent to the housing to receive the ice mass delivered through the ice delivery opening [col 4, lines 44-61; see fig 2.]
Regarding Claim 19, Kitou, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 18 above and teaches an exhaust fan [121] for expelling warm air from the housing in a direction of the container when the container is at the receiving location [col 3, lines 39-46; fig. 5].
Claim(s) 20 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitou et al. (JPS61287405A) in view of Swanson et al. (US3625023).
Regarding Claim 20, Kitou teaches an apparatus for purifying raw water from a raw water source [0001; 0002], the apparatus comprising:
a raw water collection tank [2] for holding raw water having impurities [0005];
a freezing surface [5; 0006];
circulation means [8, 8a] for flowing raw water from the raw water collection tank over the freezing surface [0006];
refrigeration means [18, 21] for regulating a temperature of the freezing surface to cause an ice mass to grow by freezing a portion of the raw water as the raw water flows over the freezing surface, wherein an unfrozen portion of the raw water which flows over the freezing surface transports impurities in the ice mass away from the ice mass, and to cause the ice mass to separate from the freezing surface [0007-0010];
an ice receptacle [3] arranged to receive the ice mass after the ice mass separates from the freezing surface [0005; 0008]; and
heating means [15] associated with the ice receptacle for transferring heat to the ice receptacle, and wherein the heating means transfers heat to an underside of the ice receptacle [0007];
wherein the raw water collection tank is arranged to receive the unfrozen portion of the raw water such that the unfrozen portion of the raw water is recirculated by the circulation means to again flow over the freezing surface [0006-0009]; wherein the ice mass in the ice receptacle is available for melting to provide purified water [0005-0008].
Kitou does not teach wherein the ice mass received in the ice receptacle consists of a single slab of ice having a predefined substantially uniform thickness.
However, Swanson teaches an ice maker [fig 1] having wherein an ice mass [25] received in the ice receptacle consists of a single slab of ice having a substantially uniform thickness [col 4, lines 35-52; fig 5] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. provides a system that produces large capacity of ice [col 2, lines 43-55].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Kitou to have wherein the ice mass received in the ice receptacle consists of a single slab of ice having a substantially uniform thickness in view of the teachings of Swanson where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. provides a system that produces large capacity of ice.
Regarding Claim 21, Kitou, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 20 above and Kitou teaches wherein the freezing surface defines a plurality of cubic freezing chambers, each of the plurality of cubic freezing chambers having five faces defined by the freezing surface and one open face [0007].
Claim(s) 22 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitou et al. (JPS61287405A) in view of Braaten (US4572785).
Regarding Claim 22, Kitou teaches an apparatus for purifying raw water from a raw water source [0001; 0002], the apparatus comprising:
a housing [1; 0005];
a raw water collection tank [2] within the housing for holding raw water having impurities [0005];
a freezing surface [5] within the housing [0006];
circulation means [8. 8a] for flowing raw water from the raw water collection tank over the freezing surface [0006];
refrigeration means [18, 21] for regulating a temperature of the freezing surface to cause an ice mass to grow by freezing a portion of the raw water as the raw water flows over the freezing surface, wherein an unfrozen portion of the raw water which flows over the freezing surface transports impurities in the ice mass away from the ice mass, and to cause the ice mass to separate from the freezing surface [0007-0010];
an ice receptacle [3] arranged to receive the ice mass after the ice mass separates from the freezing surface, wherein the ice receptacle is configured to hold liquid [0005; 0008]; and
heating means [15] associated with the ice receptacle for transferring heat to the ice receptacle, wherein the heating means is operable to melt the ice mass received by the receptacle to provide purified water held in the ice receptacle [0007];
a purified water outlet conduit [at 22] in communication with the ice receptacle [0007];
a purified water outlet that flows purified water from the ice receptacle through the purified water outlet conduit [0007; fig 1];
an ice release sensor [10] configured and arranged to sense separation of the ice mass from the freezing surface [0006; 0007; 0009; 0011]; and
electronic control circuitry for controlling operation of the circulation means [8, 8a], the heating means [15] in an operating cycle including an ice formation period and a drainage period [0006; 0007; 0009; 0011];
wherein during the ice formation period, the circulation means is operated to grow the ice mass on the freezing surface and the heating means is operated to melt ice in the ice receptacle [0006; 0007; 0009; 0011];
wherein during the drainage period, the purified water outlet pump is operated to pump at least a portion of purified water in the ice receptacle through the purified water outlet conduit [0006; 0007; 0009; 0011];
wherein the raw water collection tank is arranged to receive the unfrozen portion of the raw water such that the unfrozen portion of the raw water is recirculated by the circulation means to again flow over the freezing surface [0006; 0007; 0009; 0011].
Whereas Kitou teaches a purified water outlet, Kitou does not explicitly teach a purified water outlet pump operable to pump purified water from the ice receptacle through the purified water outlet conduit; and electronic control circuitry for controlling outlet pump in an operating cycle.
However, Braaten teaches a device for purifying water [col 1, lines 5-10] having a purified water outlet pump [68] operable to pump purified water from an ice receptacle [66] through the purified water outlet conduit [ending at spigot 112; col 4, lines 41-64; col 6, lines 37-41; figs 1 & 3] and electronic control circuitry for controlling outlet pump in an operating cycle [see fig 5; where control is implemented during an ice making and during a drain period] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. provide a structure whereby pure water can be supplied to a user [see fig 3].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Kitou to have a purified water outlet pump operable to pump purified water from the ice receptacle through the purified water outlet conduit; and electronic control circuitry for controlling outlet pump in an operating cycle in view of the teachings of Braaten where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. provide a structure whereby pure water can be supplied to a user.
Regarding Claim 23, Kitou, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 22 above and Braaten teaches a user-operable switch [at 114] for selectively activating the purified water outlet pump [implicitly at col 6, lines 37-41].
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitou et al. (JPS61287405A) in view of Bayston (US2542892).
Regarding Claim 24, Kitou teaches an apparatus for purifying raw water from a raw water source [0001; 0002], the apparatus comprising:
a housing [1] including a bottom wall and one or more sidewalls extending vertically relative to the bottom wall [0005; fig 1],
a raw water collection tank [2] within the housing for holding raw water having impurities [0005];
a freezing surface [5] within the housing [0006];
circulation means [8, 8a] for flowing raw water from the raw water collection tank over the freezing surface [0006];
refrigeration means [18, 21] for regulating a temperature of the freezing surface to cause an ice mass to grow by freezing a portion of the raw water as the raw water flows over the freezing surface, wherein an unfrozen portion of the raw water which flows over the freezing surface transports impurities in the ice mass away from the ice mass, and to cause the ice mass to separate from the freezing surface [0007-0010];
wherein the delivered ice mass is available for melting to provide purified water [0005-0008];
wherein the raw water collection tank [2] is arranged to receive the unfrozen portion of the raw water such that the unfrozen portion of the raw water is recirculated by the circulation means to again flow over the freezing surface [0006-0009].
Kitou does not explicitly teach where the one or more sidewalls includes an ice delivery opening; and ice delivery means for delivering the ice mass through the ice delivery opening to an exterior of the housing after the ice mass separates from the freezing surface.
However, Bayston teaches a machine for manufacturing ice [col 1, lines 1-6] having wherein a housing [15] includes one or more sidewalls including an ice delivery opening [at least the opening at tray 41; see fig 2] and ice delivery means [at least chute 42] for delivering the ice mass through the ice delivery opening to an exterior of the housing after the ice mass separates from the freezing surface [col 4, lines 44-61] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. provides a system whereby ice is accessible to a user.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Kitou to have where the one or more sidewalls includes an ice delivery opening; and ice delivery means for delivering the ice mass through the ice delivery opening to an exterior of the housing after the ice mass separates from the freezing surface in view of the teachings of Bayston where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. provides a system whereby ice is accessible to a user.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LARRY L FURDGE whose telephone number is (313)446-4895. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 6a-3p; F 6a-10a.
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 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.
/LARRY L FURDGE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights