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 .
The claims received 6/23/2026 are entered. Claim 3 is cancelled.
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.
The following limitation(s) is/are 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 means or a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the means or generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
“non-contact-based infrared sensing device” includes the generic/nonce term “device” coupled with the function of “generate data indicative of a temperature within the ice storage bin”. A return to the specification provides infrared-based sensing device, which is to say in infrared sensor. Therefor the limitation is interpreted as the same or equivalents thereof.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection 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 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) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maples (US 9,188,378) in view of Devos et al (US 2021/0123652).
Regarding claim 1, Maples discloses an ice maker appliance defining a vertical direction, a lateral direction, and a transverse direction, comprising:
an ice maker body (102) having a cavity and which receives liquid water to form ice pieces therein;
an ice storage bin (106) configured to hold a plurality of ice pieces therein for retrieval therefrom, the ice storage bin positioned below the ice maker body to capture the released ice piece therein;
a non-contact-based infrared sensing device (200) configured to generate data indicative of a temperature of a surface of the plurality of ice pieces within the ice storage bin (5:1-4); and
a controller (400) operatively coupled to the non-contact-based infrared sensing device; the controller configured to: determine whether the ice storage bin is full of ice pieces based on the data generated by the non-contact-based infrared sensing device, wherein the ice level corresponds to an accumulation height of the plurality of ice pieces (5:46-6:28).
Maples lacks a mold body. Devos discloses an ice maker including a mold body with a mold cavity defined therein ([0028] “crescent cube icemaker”), the mold cavity configured to receive a fill of liquid water and form an ice piece therein, the mold body configured to release the ice piece therefrom after the ice piece has been formed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Maples with a mold style ice maker in order to provide crescent shaped ice. Moreover, it has been held that where there exists an art recognized suitability for an intended purpose that it is obvious to apply the known means to the known purpose. MPEP 2144.07. In this instance Maples provides for commercial style ice maker ice level sensor. Devos evidences that plural style ice makers are known for household type refrigerators. Merely applying the known ice level sensor to the known purpose of household refrigerator ice makers is prima facie obvious yielding predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, Maples discloses the non-contact-based sensing device (200) is positioned within the ice storage bin (2:16-17 “the sensor can be mounted inside or adjacent to the ice storage bin”), thereby permitting the non-contact-based infrared sensing device to have a temperature detection range within the ice storage bin.
Claim(s) 4-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maples (US 9,188,378), in view of Devos et al (US 2021/0123652), and in view of Borg, Jr. et al (US 6,414,301).
Regarding claims 4 and 12, Maples discloses a method for operating an ice maker appliance, the method comprising:
directing liquid water into an ice making cavity of a body of the ice maker appliance (water is necessary to form ice);
receiving, with a controller, non-contact-based sensing device data indicative of a temperature within an ice storage bin of the ice maker appliance, the ice storage bin configured to capture ice pieces released from the ice making cavity (data received from non-contact based sensors 200);
determining, with the controller, an ice level within the ice storage bin based on the received non-contact-based sensing device data (5:46-6:28); and
initiating, with the controller, a control action associated with the ice maker appliance based on the determined ice level within the ice storage bin (5:46-6:28 discusses delaying or ceasing ice making operation based on level).
Hawkes is silent concerning using a controller to control water supply to the ice maker. The examiner previously took official notice that controlling water supply to an ice maker is old and well known. Applicant challenged official notice in the reply received 6/23/2026. Borg is now provided who discloses controlling water supply valve to an ice maker based on level sensing from a non-contact ice level sensor (figure 4 “control water valve”; 6:66-7:41)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have controlled the water supply in order to allow for ice making when desired and cessation of ice making when not desired.
Maples lacks a mold body. Devos discloses an ice maker including a mold body with a mold cavity defined therein ([0028] “crescent cube icemaker”), the mold cavity configured to receive a fill of liquid water and form an ice piece therein, the mold body configured to release the ice piece therefrom after the ice piece has been formed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Maples with a mold style ice maker in order to provide crescent shaped ice. Moreover, it has been held that where there exists an art recognized suitability for an intended purpose that it is obvious to apply the known means to the known purpose. MPEP 2144.07. In this instance Maples provides for commercial style ice maker ice level sensor. Devos evidences that plural style ice makers are known for household type refrigerators. Merely applying the known ice level sensor to the known purpose of household refrigerator ice makers is prima facie obvious yielding predictable results.
Regarding claims 5 and 13, Maples discloses determining the ice level within the ice storage bin comprises: determining, with the controller, the temperature of the surface of the ice pieces within the ice storage bin based on the received non-contact-based infrared sensing device data (surface of ice detection shown in figure 1); and determining, with the controller, the ice level within the ice storage bin by correlating the determined temperature of the surface of the ice pieces within the ice storage bin to the accumulation height of the ice pieces (6:18-28 discusses the information from the sensor being used to determine ice height).
Regarding claims 6 and 14-15, Maples discloses using a detected temperature to determine an ice level, but is silent concerning which of relatively high or low temperatures corresponds to which of relatively high or low ice levels.
It has been held that an “obvious to try” rationale when choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is a support for a conclusion of obviousness which is consistent with the proper "functional approach" to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham, if the following findings can be established: (1) a finding that at the time of the invention, there had been a recognized problem or need in the art, which may include a design need or market pressure to solve a problem; (2) a finding that there had been a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions to the recognized need or problem; (3) a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success; and (4) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness. See MPEP § 2143(I) (E).
In the instant case, and as per (1), it should be noted that Maples discloses that ice level is detected by measuring temperature of the ice at the ice bin. As per (2), based on the above, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that there are only two potential solutions to the concordance: either higher temperature corresponds to higher ice level or lower ice level relative to some threshold. As per (3), one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that determining a concordance would have not yielded unpredictable results, since the prior art recognizes already the use of temperature for ice level detection and it would not change the principles of operation of the prior art, nor would it render the prior art inoperable for its intended purpose. As per (4), one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the programing a controller includes correspondence between input and output.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have matched relative temperature with relative ice level, as a matter of trying a finite number of predictable solutions, in order to employ the controller to a particular ice bin with empirically determined parameters, without yielding unpredictable results.
Regarding claim 7, Maples discloses determining, with the controller, whether the ice storage bin is full of the ice pieces by correlating the determined temperature within the ice storage bin to the accumulation height of the ice pieces (5:58-62).
Regarding claims 8 and 16, Maples discloses determining whether the ice storage bin is full of the ice pieces comprises: comparing, with the controller, the determined ice level within the ice storage bin to an ice level threshold; and determining, with the controller, that the ice storage bin is full of the ice pieces when the determined ice level within the ice storage bin equals or exceeds the ice level threshold (5:58-62).
Regarding claims 9 and 17, Maples discloses initiating the control action comprises: initiating, with the controller, a notification to an operator of the ice maker appliance that the ice storage bin is full of the ice pieces based on determining that the ice storage bin is full of the ice pieces (5:46-6:28).
Regarding claims 10 and 18, Maples discloses initiating the control action comprises: operating, with the controller, the ice maker appliance such that subsequent ice pieces are not released from the mold cavity based on determining that the ice storage bin is full of the ice pieces (5:64-65 “delays further ice production”; as modified at claim 4 the ice maker is of the mold type).
Regarding claims 11 and 19, Maples discloses initiating the control action comprises: operating, with the controller, a valve of the ice maker appliance to restrict the flow of liquid water to the mold cavity based on determining that the ice storage bin is full of the ice pieces (5:64-65 “delays further ice production”; as modified at claim 4 the ice maker includes water supply valve control, it follows when ceasing operation of the ice maker to cease water supply).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive or are rendered moot by the new grounds of rejection.
Maples is now provided in place of Hawkes as necessitated by the amendment to the claims. Maples provides for a non-contact infrared sensor which determines an ice level within an ice storage bin. As is shown in figure 1 the sensor detects the surface of the ice within the ice storage bin.
Regarding office notice, Borg Jr. is now provided to teach controlling water to an ice maker.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Brewer et al (US 10,663,205) ice maker control based on detected ice level
Jeong et al (US 10,495,366) ice maker water supply control
Marti et al (US 11,852,394) non-contact ice level detection.
Klemm (US 11,766,142) figure 19, infrared temperature sensor
Salter et al (US 11,619,440) infrared temperature sensor 84 as an alternative to proximity sensor 86 in a cooled chamber.
Jacobs et al (US 11,476,408) infrared temperature sensor as alternative to other temperature sensors.
Singh et al (US 6,675,591) infrared temperature sensor 200 of figure 3.
Furukawa et al (US 5,131,234) thermostat for ice level sensing.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER R ZERPHEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5965. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-4:00 PM.
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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at 5712707740. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER R ZERPHEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
Prosecution Insights