Prosecution Insights
Last updated: August 17, 2026
Application No. 18/904,593

IMAGING DURING ICE CREATION

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Oct 02, 2024
Examiner
ZERPHEY, CHRISTOPHER R
Art Unit
3799
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Drama Llama Mamas LLC
OA Round
2 (Final)
49%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
1y 3m
Est. Remaining
68%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 49% of resolved cases
49%
Career Allowance Rate
377 granted / 773 resolved
-21.2% vs TC avg
Strong +19% interview lift
Without
With
+19.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
45 currently pending
Career history
826
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.9%
-39.1% vs TC avg
§103
54.6%
+14.6% vs TC avg
§102
14.5%
-25.5% vs TC avg
§112
25.0%
-15.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 773 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 6/1/2026 are entered. Drawings The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “feed slot” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the “feed slot” as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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. 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. “means for freezing water” includes the generic/nonce term “means” coupled with the function of “freezing water”. A return to the specification provides a freezing chamber. Therefor the limitation is interpreted as the same or equivalents thereof. 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 20 is 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. Claim 20 recites “a means for freezing water” at line 5 which lacks antecedent basis to the same in line 2. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-19 are allowed. Claim 20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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. 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). Response to Arguments Previous rejections have been overcome. The examiner notes that while in other instances 112(f) interpretations have been overcome by adding structure to the claims that “a means for freezing” at claim 20 does not include “a freezing chamber” within the claim. The “feed slot” has been added to the claims. While this feature is not provided in the prior art combination previously relied upon it is also not shown in the instant application. The feed slot is provided at [0021] of the specification. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ice Butcher – Face Cubes Wenger (US 2,911,304) printing designs on confections Levy (US 2012/0328747) high viscosity foods processor Shah et al (US 2016/0338545) food 3D printer Le et al (US 2017/0086493) printing on food directly or onto paper provided to food Verba (US 2004/0022905) frozen cake decorating Paquet et al (US 2018/0236801) printing on food Kim (US 12,179,433) printing and vending Spurgeon et al (US 6,903,841) decorating edibles, multiple image storing Waters (US 6,376,000) chocolate painting, figure 7 Adams (US 5,165,966) snow painting Schnoebele et al (US 7,286,258) decorating edible items Baker et al (US 8,753,702) printing on edible substrates Woodhouse et al (US 8,367,134) printing on comestibles Nohilly et al (US 8,944,542) printing edible sheets Wen et al (US 7,593,563) printing on snacks enhances excitement (1:21-22) Ream et al (US 7,797,909) non-contact printing Barth et al (US 4,910,661) cake decorating THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 02, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 20, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112
Jun 01, 2026
Response Filed
Jun 16, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12704270
HEAT EXCHANGER ASSEMBLY FOR AN AIR CONDITIONING APPLIANCE
2y 2m to grant Granted Aug 11, 2026
Patent 12693056
CONNECTION APPARATUS AND INTEGRATED ASSEMBLY
2y 9m to grant Granted Jul 28, 2026
Patent 12686250
THERMAL MANAGEMENT INTEGRATED MODULE
2y 5m to grant Granted Jul 21, 2026
Patent 12680734
Heat Pump Systems and Methods
10m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12673535
VEHICULAR THERMAL MANAGEMENT MODULE
2y 7m to grant Granted Jul 07, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
49%
Grant Probability
68%
With Interview (+19.1%)
3y 2m (~1y 3m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 773 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month