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 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 7 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.
The term “type” in claim 2, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “type” 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. See MPEP 2173.05(b) (III) (E) the addition of the word "type" to an otherwise definite expression extends the scope of the expression so as to render it indefinite, because it is unclear what "type" was intended to convey.
With respect to claim 7, the claim requires determining a time to discharge water. It is unclear if this time is the same certain period of time claimed in claim 1, or if this is an additional time independent of the certain period of time. For the purposes of examination, the examiner is going to treat the claim as if it read, “the at least one processor is configured to determine [a] the certain period of time to discharge the water stored in the water tank”.
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 1-4, 10, 15, 17, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2004028348 to Kato provided by Applicant in the IDS filed December 9, 2025 hereinafter referred to as Kato (see English language translation provided herewith), in view of US 2021/0033336 to Schroeder et al., hereinafter referred to as Schroeder, and in further view of EP3760587 to Ozdeniz hereinafter referred to as Ozdeniz).
In reference to claim 1, Kato, Schroeder, and Odeniz disclose the claimed invention.
Kato discloses a refrigerator (see figure 1) comprising:
a main body (see figure 1);
a door rotationally or slidably installed at a front of the main body (although not explicitly disclosed, disclosure of a refrigerator such as the refrigerator described by Kato at [0001], implies that a door which is either rotationally or slidably installed is installed at a front portion of the main body, see MPEP 2144.01);
at least one storage chamber configured to store items (see figure 1);
a water tank (2) arranged in the at least one storage chamber and configured to store water to be supplied to at least one water supply system (3, ice making device);
Kato further discloses after the water stored in the water tank is in the tank for a certain period of time, the water stored in the water tank is drained onto an evaporation tray [0009].
Kato fails to explicitly disclose a water detection sensor configured to detect the water stored in the water tank; at least one processor configured to, when the water stored in the water tank is detected for at least a certain period of time by the water detection sensor, control a first pump to discharge the water stored in the water tank onto an evaporation tray under a condenser in a machine room by using a discharge path for defrost water. However, the disclosure of Kato includes a timer for measuring a time after water is supplied to the water storage tank and automatically removing the water in the storage tank when the water is in the tank for a long time [0003-0004]. The disclosure of automatic performance having a timer implies a controller with a processor as claimed. Further in [0006] the timer is triggered by installing the water storage tank [0007]. Thus, there must be some sensor that senses when the water tank is installed. There is no evidence of record that using a sensor to detect water in the tank over using a sensor to detect installation of the water tank does anything more than what would be predictable to one skilled in the art (i.e. allow for filling up the tank without removing the tank, and/or prevent purging from taking place when the tank was empty). Also, it appears that the apparatus of Kato would work equally well if the sensor used to start the timer was any sensor, as long as the sensor was indicative of the supply of water into the water tank which could be used to start the timer. Accordingly, it would have been a mere matter of obvious design choice to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, to modify Kato such that the timer triggering sensor was a water detection sensor which was configured to detect the water stored in the water tank since there is no evidence of any unexpected or new results from the modification and the modification would have yielded no more than what is predictable to one having ordinary skill.
Schroeder teaches that in the art of refrigerators, that it is a known method to dispose of waste water from a water tank (258) by directing the water from the tank to an evaporation (172) tray under a condenser (174) in a machine room (170) by using a discharge path for defrost water [0046] & [0026]. Here Schroeder teaches that this method is effective in assisting the evaporation of the liquid water within the pan. This is strong evidence that modifying Kato as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e., quickly evaporate the waste water). 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 Kato by Schroeder such that, when the water stored in the water tank is discharged on to an evaporation tray under a condenser in a machine room by using a discharge path for defrost water, 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 accelerating the rate of water evaporation.
Odeniz teaches that in the art of refrigerators, that it is a known method to include a pump connected to a water reservoir (2) such that a control unit allows the water inside the second reservoir (2) to be discharged out of the second reservoir (2) based on a command received from the control unit the control unit activates the pump such that water inside the second reservoir (2) is discharged into a water tank provided in the refrigeration device or an evaporation pan [0019]. This is strong evidence that modifying Kato as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e., remove water from the water tank into the evaporating pan). 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 Kato by Odeniz a controller controlled a first pump to discharge the water stored in the water tank onto an evaporation tray 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 moving the water in the water tank to the evaporation tray.
Note when the prior art is combined in the manner described supra, the combination will result in the claimed limitation of a water detection sensor configured to detect the water stored in the water tank; at least one processor configured to, when the water stored in the water tank is detected for at least a certain period of time by the water detection sensor, control a first pump to discharge the water stored in the water tank onto an evaporation tray under a condenser in a machine room by using a discharge path for defrost water.
In reference to claim 2, Kato, Schroeder, and Odeniz disclose the claimed invention.
Kato as modified supra fails to disclose the water detection sensor comprises at least one of a capacitive sensor, a weight detection sensor or a contact-type sensor. However, there is no evidence of record that using a capacitive sensor, a weight detection sensor or a contact-type sensor would do anything more than what is predictable in the art, (i.e. sense that water is within the water tank). Further, it appears that the apparatus of Kato as modified would work equally well as long as the sensor was able to correctly identify whether there was water in the tank, of which one having ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success with each particularly claimed sensors. Accordingly, it would have been an obvious mechanical expedient/design choice to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, to modify Kato such that the water detection sensor comprises at least one of a capacitive sensor, a weight detection sensor or a contact-type sensor since such a modification would provide nothing more than what would be predictable in the art.
In reference to claim 3, Kato, Schroeder, and Odeniz disclose the claimed invention.
Kato as modified supra fails to disclose an inside of a bottom portion of the water tank is spherical or has a slope such that an area of the inside of the bottom portion is smaller than an area of an inside of other portions of the water tank, and wherein the water detection sensor is arranged at a location corresponding to a lowest part of the bottom portion of the water tank.
With respect to the particular shape of the tank, there is no evidence of record that the shape of the bottom of the tank is significant in any way. Further it appears that the apparatus of Kato would work equally well if the shape of the tank was any shape as long as it fit within the space constraints of the refrigerator compartment. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to modify Kato such that the shape of tank was spherical or has a slope such that an area of the inside of the bottom portion is smaller than an area of an inside of other portions of the water tank, since it has been held the configuration of a claimed apparatus was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant, see MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(B).
With respect to the location of the sensor within the tank, placing a sensor to sense the presence of water within the tank at the lowest possible position with the tank makes sense, as this would ensure that even a small amount of water within the tank was sensed. Placing the sensor in any position higher than the bottom would lead to stale, stagnant water quantities to remain in the tank without purging and could lead to bad tasting, unhygienic ice by breeding of germs inside the water reservoir. Accordingly, it would have been an obvious mechanical expedient to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, to modify Kato such that, the water detection sensor is arranged at a location corresponding to a lowest part of the bottom portion of the water tank, in order to ensure that any amount of water in the tank was detected by the sensor and flushed out if necessary in ensure good-tasting, high quality ice.
In reference to claim 4, Kato, Schroeder, and Odeniz disclose the claimed invention.
Schroeder teaches a fan (176) on the machine room (170) to direct a flow of air across on into the evaporation pan [0026]. The prior art fails to disclose the at least one processor is configured to control revolutions per minute (rpm) of the air blowing fan in the machine room to a maximum level while the water stored in the water tank is discharged onto the evaporation tray. However, one skilled in the art would understand that the flow rate of air over the evaporation tray would affect the amount of water to be evaporated into the air and that a faster fan speed would correlate to a faster evaporation rate and vice versa. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably been expected to have been able to program the controller to increase the flow rate of the fan to the maximum level to ensure that a large amount of water within the evaporation pan was able to be evaporated into the flow of fan air. Accordingly, it would have been an obvious mechanical expedient to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, to modify Kato such that the at least one processor is configured to control revolutions per minute (rpm) of an air blowing fan in the machine room to a maximum level while the water stored in the water tank is discharged onto the evaporation tray in order to maximize the amount of water evaporated into the airstream.
In reference to claim 10, Kato, Schroeder, and Odeniz disclose the claimed invention.
Kato disclose the water supply system comprises an ice maker (3).
In reference to claim 15, Kato, Schroeder, and Odeniz disclose the claimed invention.
Kato as modified supra fails to disclose when controlling the first pump to discharge the water stored in the water tank onto the evaporation tray, the at least one processor is configured to send a notification message to user equipment through a server device, and the notification message indicates that discharging of remaining water will start. However, Kato does disclose notifying a user via a light or alarm that a certain abnormal condition has occurred (see abstract). Thus, one skilled in the art would understand that sending a notification to a user of a condition that would empty the tank is desirable. Providing the notification would do nothing more than what is predictable in the art (i.e. alert the consumer of an abnormal condition that needs attention), and there is no evidence of record to the contrary. Further, notifications though a server (for example internet APP communications are well known and predictable in the art). Accordingly, it would have been an obvious mechanical expedient to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, to modify Kato such that when controlling the first pump to discharge the water stored in the water tank onto the evaporation tray, the at least one processor is configured to send a notification message to user equipment through a server device, and the notification message indicates that discharging of remaining water will start, in order to notify the user of an abnormal condition that could require user attention.
In reference to claim 17, Kato, Schroeder, and Odeniz disclose the claimed invention.
Kato as modified supra fails to disclose the at least one processor is configured to deactivate operation of at least one pump for supplying the water from the water tank into the at least one water supply system in response to receiving a signal indicating that no water is detected in the water tank from the water detection sensor arranged at a location corresponding to a bottom portion of the water tank.
However, one skilled in the art would understand that running a pump without fluid is highly undesirable as doing so causes dry running which can lead to mechanical failure of the pump. Including systems to ensure that the prevents dry run would have been well within the level of ordinary skill in the art as doing so would do nothing more than what is predictable in the art. Further, stopping the flow of water at the exact moment the tank ran dry would ensure that all water was evacuated without damaging the components of the pump with a reasonable expectation of success. Accordingly, it would have been an obvious mechanical expedient to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, to modify Kato such that, the at least one processor is configured to deactivate operation of at least one pump for supplying the water from the water tank into the at least one water supply system in response to receiving a signal indicating that no water is detected in the water tank from the water detection sensor arranged at a location corresponding to a bottom portion of the water tank, in order to ensure that the pump does not run dry and cause mechanical failures while also ensuring that the tank is fully emptied.
In reference to claims 18 and 20, Kato, Schroeder, and Odeniz disclose the claimed invention.
Kato fails to disclose the at least one processor is configured to output an alert to replenish the water tank with water through at least one of user equipment connected to the server device, a display or a speaker in response to receiving, from the water detection sensor, the signal indicating that no water is detected in the water tank or the at least one processor is configured to, when a temperature of an inside of the refrigerator is a reference temperature or higher, output an alert to check the temperature in the refrigerator or an alert to check a status of the water tank through at least one of user equipment connected to the server device, a display or a speaker.
However, Kato does disclose alerting a user via a light or alarm that a certain abnormal condition has occurred (see abstract). Thus, one skilled in the art would understand that sending an alert to a user of a condition that would require user attention is beneficial. Providing the alert would do nothing more than what is predictable in the art (i.e. alert the consumer of an abnormal condition that needs attention), and there is no evidence of record to the contrary. Further, notifications though a server (for example internet and app communications are well known and predictable in the art). Accordingly, it would have been an obvious mechanical expedient to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, to modify Kato such that the at least one processor is configured to output an alert to replenish the water tank with water through at least one of user equipment connected to the server device, a display or a speaker in response to receiving, from the water detection sensor, the signal indicating that no water is detected in the water tank, and the at least one processor is configured to, when a temperature of an inside of the refrigerator is a reference temperature or higher, output an alert to check the temperature in the refrigerator or an alert to check a status of the water tank through at least one of user equipment connected to the server device, a display or a speaker, in order to notify the user of an abnormal condition that could require user attention.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato, Schroeder, and Ozdeniz as applied to claim 1 supra, and in further view of WO2006/097838 to Nebbia et al., hereinafter referred to as Nebbia.
In reference to claims 5 and 6, Kato, Schroeder, Odeniz, and Nebbia disclose the claimed invention.
Kato as modified supra fails to disclose the discharge path for defrost water comprises a drain tube connected from a drain plate under an evaporator to the evaporation tray in the machine room. wherein a water tank hose configured to discharge water from the water tank is connected to the drain plate under the evaporator from the water tank, and the water discharged from the water tank to the drain plate through the water tank hose flows into the drain tube through a drain hole of the drain plate and arrives at the evaporation tray.
Nebbia teaches that in the art of evaporating water from a water tank (11) to an evaporation tray (36) in a machine room of a refrigerator (see page 8 lines 16-24), that it is a known method to do so by including a discharge path for defrost water comprising a drain tube (31a) connected from a drain plate (31) under an evaporator (30) to the evaporation tray (36) in the machine room, wherein a water tank hose (35) configured to discharge water from the water tank (11) is connected to the drain plate (31) under the evaporator (30) from the water tank (11), and the water discharged from the water tank to the drain plate (31) through the water tank hose (34) flows into the drain tube (31a) through a drain hole of the drain plate (31) and arrives at the evaporation tray (36). See page 8 lines 16-24 where Nebbia teaches terminating tubing (35) in tray (31) for indirect communication with gray (32/36). This is strong evidence that modifying Kato as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e., communication between the waste water drain hose and an evaporation tray). 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 Kato by Nebbia such that, the discharge path for defrost water comprises a drain tube connected from a drain plate under an evaporator to the evaporation tray in the machine room. wherein a water tank hose configured to discharge water from the water tank is connected to the drain plate under the evaporator from the water tank, and the water discharged from the water tank to the drain plate through the water tank hose flows into the drain tube through a drain hole of the drain plate and arrives at the evaporation tray, 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 indirect communication between the drain hose and the evaporation tray.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 9, 11-14, 16 and 19 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.
Claim 7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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