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 submitted information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
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 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:
“an ice chip preparing assembly, configured to make […]”
The aforementioned limitation(s) meet the three prong test, as follows:
The limitation includes a generic placeholder (i.e., “ice […] assembly”) with no specific structural meaning.
The generic placeholder is coupled with functional language (i.e., “configured to”).
The functional language does not appear to include sufficient structures or materials to perform the claimed functions.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appear to be the corresponding structures for the aforementioned 112(f) limitation(s):
The ice chip preparing assembly appears to at least include a water dipping tray with a float valve; an ice making roller; a scraper; and a feedstock water tank with a water pipe.1
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 Objections
The following claims are objected to because of informalities, wherein appropriate correction is required:
In claim 1: the recitation of “into ice cubes” (in line 9) should be amended to –into the ice cubes— (given the antecedence provided in lines 3-4).
In claim 5: the recitation of “ice chips” (in line 2) should be amended to –the ice chips— (given the antecedence provided in claim 1).
In claim 16: the recitation of “ice chips” (in line 2) should be amended to –the ice chips— (given the antecedence provided in claim 1).
In claim 17: the recitation of “ice chips” (in line 2) should be amended to –the ice chips— (given the antecedence provided in claim 1).
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.
Claims 4, 10 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 4 contains the following issues:
The claim recites the term “rigidly” which is a relative term that renders the claim indefinite. The term “rigidly” 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. A review of the specification2 appears to show a mere reiteration of the claim language, without providing a threshold value for what may or may not be considered sufficiently rigid. For examination purposes, the recitation of “rigidly connected” will simply be construed as –connected—.
Claim 10 contains the following issues:
The claim recites the term “its pressure holding time” without proper antecedent basis. For examination purposes, the recitation will be construed as –a pressure holding time—.
Claim 14 contains the following issues:
The claim recites the term “rigidly” which is a relative term that renders the claim indefinite. The term “rigidly” 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. A review of the specification3 appears to show a mere reiteration of the claim language, without providing a threshold value for what may or may not be considered sufficiently rigid. For examination purposes, the recitation of “rigidly connected” will simply be construed as –connected—.
Claim 15 contains the following issues:
The claim recites the term “rigidly” which is a relative term that renders the claim indefinite. The term “rigidly” 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. A review of the specification4 appears to show a mere reiteration of the claim language, without providing a threshold value for what may or may not be considered sufficiently rigid. For examination purposes, the recitation of “rigidly connected” will simply be construed as –connected—.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3, 5-9, 11-13 and 16-20 appear allowable over the prior art of record.
Claims 4, 10 and 14-15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all5 of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The closest prior art references appear to be Yamashita et al. (WO 2010004823 A1), herein Yamashita, Field (US 3879958 A), Kato et al. (WO 2008004355 A1), herein Kato, and Yamauchi (US 5786004 A). At best, Yamashita seems to suggest an ice processing apparatus (see at least figs. 2-3) that includes an ice scraper (20), an ice pressing assembly (15, etc.) and an ice pusher (4, 11, etc.), but does not appear to teach or disclose all of the structural components or their claimed configurations, as interpreted under § 112(f). Likewise, Field seems to suggest an ice making apparatus (30) that produces fragmented ice (34), comprising an ice press (58), a mold (46) and an ice removing pusher (70), but does not appear to disclose or teach all the claimed structures and configurations. Kato suggests an ice shaving machine (see fig. 1) comprising a scraper (101), a presser (105) and a removing station (108), but does not appear to suggest all the claimed structures and configurations. Lastly, Yamauchi seems to suggest an ice making apparatus (see at least fig. 3), comprising a pressing assembly (21) and a mold (11), but does not appear to disclose or teach the remaining claim limitations.
It should be noted that the intended purpose and operating principles of the prior art require the specific arrangement of ice making components (e.g., such as the scrapers, molds, etc.) as disclosed and described therein. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that any modifications to the references to arrive at the claimed invention would be based on improper hindsight, and would render them inoperable for their intended purpose. Assuming arguendo, rearranging the ice processing components as claimed would change the principles of operation thereof, since it would require completely redesigning the structure of the ice making apparatuses, as currently described therein, most likely resulting in unexpected and/or unintended results, which is evidence against a prima facie case of obviousness. Thus, a preponderance of evidence supports the allowability of the claims over the prior art.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a). Applicant is advised that any amendments that change the scope of the claimed invention will require further search and consideration which may result in a new ground(s) of rejection(s) prior to a final determination of allowability.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIGUEL A DIAZ whose telephone number is (313)446-6587. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM Eastern Time.
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 C. Atkisson can be reached at (571) 270-7740. 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.
/MIGUEL A DIAZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
1 See ¶¶ 27-33 of the Specification as filed on December 16, 2024.
2 See ¶ 65 of the specification, id.
3 See ¶ 65 of the specification, id.
4 See ¶ 65 of the specification, id.
5 Disclaimer: failure to include all the intervening limitations will result in a different claim scope, which may require a new grounds of rejection prior to a final determination of allowability.
Prosecution Insights