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 Objections
Claim 6 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6 recites “a notification to an operator of the ice maker appliance of an unsuccessful ice harvesting operation” which lacks antecedent basis and is interpreted to recite -- the notification to the operator of the ice maker appliance of the unsuccessful ice harvesting operation --.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a non-contact sensing device” in claims 9 and 13, “an infrared sensing device” in claim 12 and 16.
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: : “a non-contact sensing device” and “an infrared sensing device” correspond to an infrared thermopile sensing device as described in paragraph 0042 of the published application.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
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 § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7, 9-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JI et al (US 20240263863).
Regarding claim 1, JI teaches a method for operating an ice maker appliance (100, fig. 9), the method comprising: directing, with a controller (131), liquid water (s1000) into a mold cavity (115) of a mold body (110) of the ice maker appliance; receiving, with the controller, non-contact-based sensing device data (paragraph 0100-0102) indicative of a temperature within the mold cavity (temperature of water in the 115, paragraph 0100-0102); detecting, with the controller, a presence of an ice piece (ice, paragraph 0102) within the mold cavity based on the received non-contact-based sensing device data; and initiating, with the controller, a control action (ice separation, paragraph 0102-0103) associated with the ice maker appliance in response to the detection of the presence of the ice piece within the mold cavity.
Regarding claim 2, JI teaches detecting the presence of the ice piece within the mold cavity comprises: determining, with the controller, the temperature within the mold cavity based on the received non-contact-based sensing device data (paragraph 0100-0103); and detecting, with the controller, the presence of the ice piece within the mold cavity based on the determined temperature within the mold cavity (paragraph 0100-0103).
Regarding claim 3, JI teaches detecting the presence of the ice piece within the mold cavity comprises: comparing, with the controller, the determined temperature within the mold cavity to a temperature threshold (preset temperature, paragraph 0101-0103); and detecting, with the controller, the presence of the ice piece within the mold cavity in response to the determined temperature within the mold cavity being approximately equal to the temperature threshold (equal, paragraph 0102).
Regarding claim 7, JI teaches initiating the control action comprises: performing, with the controller, an ice harvesting operation (ice separating, paragraph 0101-0103) in response to the detection of the presence of the ice piece within the mold cavity.
Regarding claim 9, JI teaches all the limitations of claim 9 including a non-contact-based sensing device (161) and a controller (131) operatively coupled to the non-contact-based sensing device (paragraph 0101-0103). See rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claims 10 and 14, JI teaches the mold cavity comprises an open end (open end of 115, annotated fig. 3 below), the open end oriented upwards (fig. 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
602
688
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 11 and 15, JI teaches wherein the non-contact-based sensing device is positioned over the open end of the mold cavity (exposed to the ice tray, paragraph 0100) so that the non-contact-based sensing device has a temperature detection range within the mold cavity (paragraph 0100-0103).
Regarding claims 12 and 16, JI teaches the non-contact-based sensing device is configured as an infrared-based sensing device (infrared, paragraph 0100).
Regarding claim 13, JI teaches all the limitations of claim 10 including a refrigerator appliance (1) defining a vertical direction (fig. 2), a lateral direction (fig. 2), and a transverse direction (fig. 2), comprising: a cabinet (cabinet, paragraph 0075) defining a chilled chamber (refrigerating compartment, paragraph 0077); a door (a door, paragraph 0075) rotatably mounted to the cabinet to provide selective access to the chilled chamber (fig. 2); an ice maker (100) positioned within the chilled chamber (fig. 1). See rejection of claim 9.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 4, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JI in view of Shi as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Kim et al (US 20220357088).
Regarding claim 4, JI teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach the temperature threshold corresponds to an ambient temperature within the ice maker appliance.
However, Kim teaches the temperature threshold (temperature sensor has reached an OFF reference, paragraph 0618) corresponds to an ambient temperature (a temperature above zero, paragraph 0620, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize an ambient temperature would be above zero) within the ice maker appliance to efficiently separate ice.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of JI to include the temperature threshold corresponds to an ambient temperature within the ice maker appliance in view of the teachings of Kim to efficiently separate ice.
Regarding claim 8, the combined teachings teach initiating the control action comprises: operating, with the controller, a valve (810 of Kim) of the ice maker appliance to restrict the flow of liquid water (turn off valve, paragraph 0504 of Kim) to the mold cavity in response to the detection of the presence of the ice piece within the mold cavity (paragraph 0101-0103 of JI).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JI as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shi et al (US 20220235991).
Regarding claim 5, JI teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach wherein initiating the control action comprises: initiating, with the controller, a notification to an operator of the ice maker appliance of an unsuccessful ice harvesting operation when the presence of the ice piece within the mold cavity is detected.
However, Shi teaches wherein initiating the control action (movement of ejector, paragraph 0105) comprises: initiating, with the controller, a notification to an operator of the ice maker appliance (it is well known in the art of ice making to provide a notification or an alert) of an unsuccessful ice harvesting operation (error, fig. 17a) when the presence of the ice piece within the mold cavity is detected (blocked due to ice accumulation, paragraph 0105) to provide a reliable ice maker control to detect and remove ice that may be interfering with the movement of the ejector finger.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of JI to include wherein initiating the control action comprises: initiating, with the controller, a notification to an operator of the ice maker appliance of an unsuccessful ice harvesting operation when the presence of the ice piece within the mold cavity is detected in view of the teachings of Shi to provide a reliable ice maker control to detect and remove ice that may be interfering with the movement of the ejector finger.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JI in view of Shi as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Kim et al (US 20220357088).
Regarding claim 6, the combined teachings the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach wherein initiating the notification to the operator comprises: displaying the notification to the operator of the ice maker appliance of the unsuccessful ice harvesting operation when the presence of the ice piece within the mold cavity is detected.
However, Kim teaches wherein initiating the notification to the operator comprises: displaying (820) the notification to the operator of the ice maker appliance of the unsuccessful ice harvesting operation when the presence of the ice piece within the mold cavity is detected (paragraph 0469, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the error for harvesting of Shi is capable of being displayed on the output 820 of Kim to provide notification) so that the error state can be quickly checked, thus enabling a user to quickly repair the refrigerator.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of the combined teachings to include initiating the notification to the operator comprises: displaying the notification to the operator of the ice maker appliance of the unsuccessful ice harvesting operation when the presence of the ice piece within the mold cavity is detected in view of the teachings of Kim so that the error state can be quickly checked, thus enabling a user to quickly repair the refrigerator.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH J MARTIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3840. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-3:00 CT pm M-F.
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-Daryl 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.
/ELIZABETH J MARTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights