CTNF 18/941,655 CTNF 93186 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA 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. 07-30-05 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. 07-30-06 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 automatic water supply device” in claim 1; 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. After reviewing the specification, the automatic water supply device appears to be drawn to a water level sensor (per paragraph [0089]) or known equivalents. Double Patenting 08-33 AIA The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. 08-34 AIA Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,173,946 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because : Application 18/941,655 US Patent 12,173,946 A refrigerator comprising: a body comprising a storage compartment, the storage compartment comprising a first storage compartment, and a second storage compartment A refrigerator comprising: a body comprising a storage compartment, the storage compartment comprising a first storage compartment, and a second storage compartment, a partition wall to separate the storage compartment into the first storage compartment and the second storage compartment; a first control valve configured to control a flow of water received from an external water supply source and a partition wall to separate the storage compartment into the first storage compartment and the second storage compartment; a first control valve configured to control a flow of water received from an external water supply source , the first control valve arranged in the first storage compartment; an ice maker connected to the first control valve and configured to generate ice using the water discharged from the first control valve; a second control valve connected to the first control valve and configured control a flow of the water discharged from the first control valve an ice maker connected to the first control valve and configured to generate ice using the water discharged from the first control valve, the ice maker arranged in the second storage compartment; a second control valve connected to the first control valve and configured control a flow of the water discharged from the first control valve; a dispenser comprising an operating lever, connected to the second control valve and configured to supply the water received from the second valve by an operation of the operating lever; and an automatic water supply device, connected to the second control valve, configured to supply the water received from the second valve to a water container and configured to control the water container to be filled with a predetermined amount of water a dispenser comprising an operating lever, connected to the second control valve and configured to supply the water received from the second valve by an operation of the operating lever; a water supplier configured to supply the water received from the first control valve to the ice maker by penetrating the partition wall an automatic water supplier, connected to the second control valve, configured to supply the water received from the second valve to a water container and configured to control the water container to be filled with a predetermined amount of water, wherein the first control valve selectively guides the water received from the external water supply source to the ice maker or to the second control valve, and the second control valve selectively guides the water received from the first control valve to the dispenser or the automatic water supply device. wherein the first control valve selectively guides the water received from the external water supply source to the ice maker or to the second control valve , and the second control valve selectively guides the water received from the first control valve to the dispenser or the automatic water supplier . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meuleners (US 2009/0025826 – provided by Applicant in the IDS) in view of Park (US 2018/0187964 – provided by Applicant in the IDS) . Regarding claim 1, Meuleners teaches a refrigerator (Fig. 1, see Abstract) comprising: a body (22, Fig. 1, paragraph [0026]) comprising a storage compartment (see in Fig. 1), the storage compartment comprising a first storage compartment, and a second storage compartment (21, 22, Fig. 1, paragraph [0026]), and a partition wall to separate the storage compartment into the first storage compartment and the second storage compartment (see at least Fig. 8); a first control valve configured to control a flow of water (126, Fig. 7, paragraph [0039]) received from an external water supply source (via 110, Fig. 7, paragraph [0042]); an ice maker connected to the first control valve and configured to generate ice using the water discharged from the first control valve (153, Fig. 7, paragraph [0042]); a dispenser (28, Fig. 6, paragraph [0027]) comprising an operating lever (42, Fig. 6, paragraph [0032]), an automatic water supply device (128, Fig. 7, paragraph [0040]), configured to supply the water a water container (128, Fig. 7, paragraph [0040]) and configured to control the water container to be filled with a predetermined amount of water (see paragraph [0019]). Meuleners does not teach: a second control valve connected to the first control valve and configured control a flow of the water discharged from the first control valve; connected to the second control valve and configured to supply the water received from the second valve by an operation of the operating lever; and wherein the first control valve selectively guides the water received from the external water supply source to the ice maker or to the second control valve, and the second control valve selectively guides the water received from the first control valve to the dispenser or the automatic water supply device. Park teaches a refrigerator (Park, Title) which features multiple storage compartments (Park, 20, 30, 40, paragraph [0054]) wherein a first vale is connected to a water supply (Park, 73 connected to the supply 79, see Fig. 4, see paragraph [0079]) and a second control valve connected to the first control valve and configured control a flow of the water discharged from the first control valve (Park, 121, Fig 10, paragraph [0090]); a dispenser (90, paragraph [0121]) is connected to the second control valve and configured to supply the water received from the second valve by an operation of an operating lever of the dispenser (see Park, paragraph [0121]), wherein the first control valve selectively guides the water received from the external water supply source to the ice maker or to the second control valve (see Park, 74, 75, Fig. 4, see paragraphs [0080]-[0081]), and the second control valve selectively guides the water received from the first control valve to the dispenser or the automatic water supply device (Park, paragraphs [0118]-[0121]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to provide Meuleners with the second control valve being connected to the first control valve, dispenser, and automatic water supply device, as taught by Park, in order to effectively control the output of water from the dispenser and into the water container. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAEL N BABAA whose telephone number is (571)270-3272. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-5 EST. 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. /NAEL N BABAA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/941,655 Page 2 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/941,655 Page 3 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/941,655 Page 4 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/941,655 Page 5 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/941,655 Page 6 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/941,655 Page 7 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/941,655 Page 8 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/941,655 Page 9 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/941,655 Page 10 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/941,655 Page 11 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/941,655 Page 12 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/941,655 Page 13 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/941,655 Page 14 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/941,655 Page 15 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/941,655 Page 16 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/941,655 Page 17 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/941,655 Page 18 Art Unit: 3763
Prosecution Insights