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 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: “flow control device” used throughout the claims.
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.
For the record, “flow control device” has been interpreted according to the corresponding structure described in the specification as being a pump or valve (see paras. 0043, 0045; etc.), 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 § 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 2-3, 12-13, 16, and 19 are 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.
The term “substantially” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” 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.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “free of a fluid flow control device…” at line 3 of the claim. The phrase “free of” renders this limitation unclear. The Examiner suggests amending “is free of” to “does not comprise.”
Further, the recitation of “a fluid flow control device” in claim 3 renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear how it distinguishes from “a flow control device” recited in claim 1, line 3.
In addition, the overall recitation of claim 3 is not clear. It appears to maybe comparing an embodiment with a flow control device to one based solely on gravitational feeding, but this is unclear. Due to the uncertainty regarding the metes and bounds of the claim, examination on the merits has been precluded at this time.
Claim 12 recites “a water filter” in line 2 of the claim, which renders the claim indefinite since claim 11 also recites “a water filter.” While the claims recite the recited water filters being at different locations, the use of “a water filter” in both instance renders the claim unclear. The Examiner suggests amending claim 11 to recite “a first water filter…” and amending claim 12 to “a second water filter….”
Claim 12 recites the limitation “free of a water filter…” at line 2 of the claim. The phrase “free of” renders this limitation unclear. The Examiner suggests amending “is free of” to “does not comprise.”
Claim 13 also recites the limitation “free of a water filter…” at line 2 of the claim. The phrase “free of” renders this limitation unclear. The Examiner suggests amending “is free of” to “does not comprise.”
Similar to claim 3, the overall recitation of claim 16 is not clear. It appears to maybe comparing an embodiment with a flow control device to one based solely on gravitational feeding, but this is unclear. Due to the uncertainty regarding the metes and bounds of the claim, examination on the merits has been precluded at this time.
Claim 19 recites “a second reservoir” in line 3 of the claim. However, the claims already recited two reservoirs (“upper reservoir” and “lower reservoir”), and also does not explicitly recite “a first reservoir” thus rendering the recitation of “a second reservoir” unclear and indefinite.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 15, 17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Weaver (US 2025/0283646 A1).
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
As per claim 1, Weaver discloses an ice maker appliance, the ice maker appliance comprising: an ice engine 50 comprising a water supply opening (Fig. 4, supply line from 34);
a flow control device (pump 32 and valve 304 are both “flow control devices” as interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), above);
a lower reservoir 34 comprising a supply outlet opening and a return opening (Fig. 4); an upper reservoir 34 comprising a supply inlet opening (from 32), an ice engine supply opening (to 50), and a drain opening (to 24 via 306);
an upper reservoir supply conduit fluidly coupling the lower reservoir to the upper reservoir, wherein the upper reservoir supply conduit fluidly couples from the supply outlet opening to the supply inlet opening (line from 24 to 34 comprising 304 and 32), and wherein the flow control device 32 is configured to selectively feed water through the upper reservoir supply conduit from the lower reservoir to the upper reservoir (Fig. 4);
a drain conduit fluidly coupling the upper reservoir to the lower reservoir (line comprising valve 306), wherein the drain conduit fluidly couples from the drain opening to the return opening, wherein the drain conduit is configured to gravitationally feed water from the drain opening at the upper reservoir to the return opening at the lower reservoir (Fig. 4); and
a water supply conduit fluidly coupling the upper reservoir to the ice engine (line from 34 to 50), wherein the water supply conduit fluidly couples from the ice engine supply opening to the water supply opening (Fig. 4).
As per claim 4, since the pump (flow control device) 32 of Weaver does not prevent water flow from 34 to 24 (via line with 306) when the pump is stopped, Weaver is deemed to disclose wherein the flow control device is configured to permit flow from the upper reservoir to the lower reservoir when the flow control device is deactivated.
As per claim 15, Weaver discloses wherein the return opening at the lower reservoir is positioned at a greater height than the supply outlet opening at the lower reservoir (Fig. 4).
As per claim 17, Weaver discloses wherein the flow control device (e.g., 304) is received directly onto the lower reservoir at the supply outlet opening (Fig. 4).
As per claim 20, Weaver discloses wherein the ice maker appliance comprises a nugget ice maker appliance (para. 0022; etc.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Weaver.
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
As per claim 2, Weaver does not teach wherein the drain conduit comprises a substantially constant flow area from the drain opening at the upper reservoir to the return opening at the lower reservoir. Official notice is taken that maintaining a constant flow area would have been a simple mechanical expedient that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application for the purpose of design simplicity allowing the use of a single uniform pipe.
As per claim 5, Weaver does not teach wherein the flow control device comprises a centrifugal flow control device. Official notice is taken that centrifugal pumps are generally old and known in the art, and would have been a simple mechanical expedient that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to use within the context of Weaver as an effective pumping technology for moving water from the lower reservoir to the upper reservoir.
As per claim 6, while Weaver does not teach the ice maker appliance comprising: a water level sensor configured to determine a water height at the upper reservoir, it does teach determining whether the upper reservoir requires water (para. 0037). Official notice is taken that providing a water level sensor configured to determine a water height at the upper reservoir would have been an obvious mechanical expedient that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application for the purpose of acquiring the information needed to make that determination.
As per claim 7, Weaver does not explicitly teach wherein the supply inlet opening is positioned at the upper reservoir greater than a maximum water level height. Official notice is taken that such positioning would have been an obvious mechanical expedient that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application so that water can be effectively pumped into the upper reservoir without any reverse pressure from the water therein.
As per claim 8, while Weaver does not explicitly teach wherein the water level sensor is operably coupled to the flow control device, and wherein the flow control device is configured to activate to supply water from the lower reservoir to the upper reservoir when the water level sensor determines a water height at the upper reservoir at or less than a minimum water level heigh, it does teach pump 32 pumping water to the upper reservoir when required. Official notice is taken that determining whether the water in the reservoir is below a minimum threshold is a simple expedient that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application for the purpose of determining that water is required within the upper reservoir.
As per claim 9, Weaver does not teach wherein the flow control device is configured to deactivate to discontinue supplying water from the lower reservoir to the upper reservoir when the water level sensor determines the water height at the upper reservoir at or greater than a maximum water level height. Official notice is taken that it would have been a further obvious expedient to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to stop the pump once the water level reaches a maximum level for the simple purpose of preventing water from overflowing from the upper reservoir.
As per claim 10, Weaver does not teach wherein a flow area at the drain conduit is less than a flow area at the upper reservoir supply conduit. Official notice is taken that the relative flow areas are a simple matter of routine flow optimization that would have been a further obvious expedient to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to arrive at via routine experimentation.
As per claim 11, Weaver does not teach the ice maker appliance comprising: a water filter positioned at the upper reservoir, the water filter fluidly upstream of the water supply conduit and the ice engine. Official notice is taken that the placement of a filter within the water flow is a simple mechanical expedient that would have been a further obvious expedient to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application for the purpose of ensuring the water going to the ice engine is free of any impurities.
As per claim 12, Weaver discloses wherein the ice maker appliance is free of a water filter positioned at the lower reservoir (Weaver no filter so positioned).
As per claim 13, Weaver discloses wherein the ice maker appliance is free of a water filter positioned fluidly upstream of the flow control device to the lower reservoir (again, Weaver no filter so positioned).
As per claim 14, Weaver does not teach wherein the water filter positioned at the upper reservoir is positioned fluidly upstream of the ice engine supply opening and the drain opening, wherein water at the upper reservoir passes through the water filter to flow to the ice engine supply opening or the drain opening.
As per claim 18, Weaver discloses the ice maker appliance comprising: a lower reservoir egress conduit (egress from 24 via conduit to 32) .While Weaver teaches the conduit comprising valve 304,it does not teach the connection having a quick-release fitting. Official notice is taken that quick-release fittings are common devices for attaching conduits and would thus have been a simple mechanical expedient that would have been a further obvious expedient to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to apply to the conduit of Weaver for the purpose of purpose of facilitating assembly or disassembly of the conduit to the reservoir.
As per claim 19, Weaver does not teach the ice maker appliance comprising: a second reservoir positioned adjacent to the lower reservoir, wherein the lower reservoir egress conduit fluidly couples the lower reservoir to the second reservoir. Official notice is taken that the provision of an additional reservoir would have been a simple mechanical expedient that devices for attaching conduits and would thus have been a simple mechanical expedient that would have been a further obvious expedient to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application for the simple purpose of collecting any excess water from the icemaking system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC E NORMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4812. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30 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, Frantz Jules can be reached at 571-272-6681. 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.
/MARC E NORMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights