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 .
This Office action is in response to the application filed 12/11/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 “the flow control device comprises a fill valve extending into the receiving plenum of the reservoir” recited in claim 4 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.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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” in claims 1 and 14.
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. A review of the specification in paragraph 45 reveals “Changes in the position of the rod or member are coupled to a sensor or switch operably coupled to a flow control device (e.g., a pump or valve, such as flow control device 160) configured to selectively permit or inhibit flow of water to the upper reservoir 140”.
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 5 and 12 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.
Claim 5 recites “the ice maker appliance is free of a second reservoir configured to feed water from the second reservoir to the reservoir” which is confusing as it is not clear whether a second reservoir is required by the claim rendering the scope of the claim unclear and indefinite.
Claim 12 recites the limitation " the valve" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 14 recites the flow control device comprises a flow control device and fails to further limit the claimed subject matter. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-6, 8-11 and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kandi et al. (US PG Pub. 2020/0224949) in view of Mitchell et al. (US PG Pub. 2023/0168021).
Regarding claim 1, Kandi discloses an ice maker appliance, the ice maker appliance (200, Fig. 8) comprising: an ice engine (210) comprising a water supply opening (opening of 210 communicating with conduit in communication with outlet 270); a reservoir (266) comprising a body (264), the body comprising a side wall and a base wall (Fig. 8), wherein a supply inlet opening (268), and an ice engine supply opening (270) are formed through the body, and wherein the body forms a receiving plenum (plenum of 266) at which water is received from the supply inlet opening (paragraph 50); a water level sensor (282) configured to determine a water height at the reservoir (paragraph 54); a water supply conduit (conduit coupled between outlet 270 and ice engine 210) fluidly coupling the reservoir to the ice engine, wherein the water supply conduit fluidly couples from the ice engine supply opening to the water supply opening (Fig. 8); a water filter (274, 242), the water filter positioned fluidly upstream of a drain opening, the ice engine supply opening (270), or both; and a reservoir supply conduit (260) fluidly coupling the reservoir (266) to a main water supply (272) and a flow control device (276), wherein the flow control device (276) is operably coupled to the water level sensor (282) to selectively permit flow of water through the reservoir supply conduit to the reservoir based on the water height at the reservoir (paragraph 57). It is noted with recitation of “or” in the limitation “the water filter positioned fluidly upstream of a drain opening, the ice engine supply opening (270), or both” only requires a drain opening or the ice engine supply opening and the water filter positioned fluidly upstream of the ice engine supply opening 270 meets the limitations as claimed.
Kandi does not explicitly teach the water filter positioned at the reservoir.
Mitchell teaches the concept of an ice maker appliance having a reservoir for supplying water to an ice engine including a water filter (154) positioned at the reservoir (128) that purifies the water within the reservoir to provide purified water to the ice engine. One of ordinary skill in the art could have easily rearranged the filter of Kandi to be positioned at the reservoir to purify the water immediately prior to being sent to the ice engine in order to provide purified water to the ice engine and expected results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the ice maker appliance of Kandi to rearrange the filter to be positioned at the reservoir taught by Mitchell since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding claim 4, Kandi as modified discloses the ice maker appliance of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach wherein the flow control device comprises a fill valve extending into the receiving plenum of the reservoir.
Mitchell further teaches the flow control device comprises a fill valve (132) extending into the receiving plenum of the reservoir (128) as a known type of filling arrangement for supplying water to the receiving plenum of the reservoir. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the ice maker appliance of Kandi to have the flow control device comprises a fill valve extending into the receiving plenum of the reservoir taught by Mitchell in order to provide an alternative type of valve for supplying water to the reservoir.
Regarding claim 5, as best understood, Kandi as modified discloses the ice maker appliance of claim 1, wherein the ice maker appliance (200) is free of a second reservoir configured to feed water from the second reservoir to the reservoir (ice maker appliance 200 shown with housing around reservoir 266 and valve 276 can be configured so that reservoir 266 is free of a second reservoir configured to feed water from the second reservoir to the reservoir).
Regarding claim 6, Kandi as modified discloses the ice maker appliance of claim 1, comprising: a cabinet (102, Fig. 1) forming an interior, wherein the reservoir (266) is at least partially housed at the interior of the cabinet.
Regarding claim 8, Kandi as modified discloses the ice maker appliance of claim 6, the cabinet (102) comprising a plurality of walls forming the interior, wherein at least one of the plurality of walls comprises an articulatable door (128, 130).
Regarding claim 9, Kandi as modified discloses the ice maker appliance of claim 8, wherein the articulatable door (128, 130) provides selective access to a storage volume extending from the door to a portion of the interior of the cabinet (paragraph 23).
Regarding claim 10, Kandi as modified discloses the ice maker appliance of claim 9, wherein the articulatable door (130) is positioned beneath an ice storage vessel (positioned in door 128 above articulatable door 130).
Regarding claim 11, Kandi as modified discloses the ice maker appliance of claim 9, wherein the articulatable door (128, 130) is positioned at a front face of the plurality of walls of the cabinet (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 13, Kandi as modified discloses the ice maker appliance of claim 1, wherein the supply inlet opening (268) is positioned at the reservoir (266) vertically above a maximum water level height of the water level sensor (shown above a maximum water level height of the water level sensor 282, Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 14, Kandi as modified discloses the ice maker appliance of claim 1, wherein the flow control device (276) comprises a flow control device (paragraph 53).
Regarding claim 15, Kandi as modified discloses the ice maker appliance of claim 1, wherein the water filter (242) is positioned fluidly between the receiving plenum (266) and a filtered water plenum (252).
Claim(s) 2-3, 7, 12, 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kandi et al. (US PG Pub. 2020/0224949) in view of Mitchell et al. (US PG Pub. 2023/0168021), further in view of Whitty et al. (US Pat. 9,273,894).
Regarding claim 2, Kandi as modified discloses the ice maker appliance of claim 1 but does not explicitly teach a valve configured to selectively discharge water from the reservoir, wherein a drain conduit fluidly couples the valve to the drain opening at the reservoir.
Whitty teaches the concept of an ice maker apparatus including a valve (88) configured to selectively discharge water from the reservoir (62), wherein a drain conduit fluidly couples the valve to the drain opening at the reservoir (Fig. 2) that allows the reservoir to completely drain all water for cleaning and servicing of the appliance (column 4, lines 50-53). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the ice maker apparatus of Kandi to have a valve configured to selectively discharge water from the reservoir, wherein a drain conduit fluidly couples the valve to the drain opening at the reservoir taught by Whitty in order to allow the reservoir to be drained for cleaning and/or maintenance.
Regarding claim 3, Kandi as modified discloses the ice maker appliance of claim 2, and the combination would arrive at the water filter (taught by Mitchell) is positioned fluidly upstream of the drain opening (taught by Whitty).
Regarding claim 7, Kandi as modified discloses the ice maker appliance of claim 6, but does not explicitly teach a valve configured to selectively discharge water from the reservoir is mounted to the cabinet.
Whitty teaches the concept of an ice maker apparatus including a valve (88) configured to selectively discharge water from the reservoir (62) is mounted to cabinet (R2, Fig. 2) that allows the reservoir to completely drain all water for cleaning and servicing of the appliance (column 4, lines 50-53). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the ice maker apparatus of Kandi to have a valve configured to selectively discharge water from the reservoir is mounted to the cabinet taught by Whitty in order to allow the reservoir to be drained for cleaning and/or maintenance.
Regarding claim 12, Kandi as modified discloses the ice maker appliance of claim 8, but does not explicitly teach the valve configured to selectively discharge water from the reservoir is mounted to a side wall of the plurality of walls of the cabinet.
Whitty teaches the concept of an ice maker apparatus including a valve (88) configured to selectively discharge water from the reservoir is mounted to a side wall of the plurality of walls of the cabinet (R2) that allows the reservoir to completely drain all water for cleaning and servicing of the appliance (column 4, lines 50-53). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the ice maker apparatus of Kandi to have a valve configured to selectively discharge water from the reservoir is mounted to a side wall of the plurality of walls of the cabinet taught by Whitty in order to allow the reservoir to be drained for cleaning and/or maintenance.
Regarding claim 16, Kandi as modified discloses the ice maker appliance of claim 15, but does not explicitly teach the reservoir comprises a drain opening at the filtered water plenum.
Whitty teaches the concept of an ice maker apparatus (Fig. 2) including a reservoir comprises a drain opening (opening to pump 24 communicating with drain 82) at the filtered water plenum (R1) that allows the reservoir to completely drain all water for cleaning and servicing of the appliance (column 4, lines 50-53). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the ice maker apparatus of Kandi to have the reservoir comprises a drain opening at the filtered water plenum taught by Whitty in order to allow the reservoir to be drained for cleaning and/or maintenance.
Regarding claim 17, Kandi as modified discloses the ice maker appliance of claim 16, and Whitty further teaches the ice maker appliance comprising: a valve (80) configured to selectively discharge water from the reservoir (R1), wherein a drain conduit (conduit between 24 and 80) fluidly couples the valve (80) to the drain opening at the filtered water plenum of the reservoir (opening of R1 to pump 24).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art does not anticipate nor render obvious the combination set forth in the independent claims, and specifically does not show "a filter body at which a filtration medium is positioned; and a hanger extending from the filter body, the hanger configured to extend around an upper lip of the body at which a top panel of the reservoir contacts the body in a closed position" recited in claim 18. The closest prior art of record discloses an ice making apparatus with filter having many of the limitations as claimed as discussed above, but not further including the combination of technical features in the arrangement as claimed in claim 18. Thus, for at least the foregoing reasons, the prior art of record neither anticipates nor rendered obvious the present invention as set forth in claims 18-20.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH F TRPISOVSKY whose telephone number is (571)270-5296. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8AM-4PM.
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.
/JOSEPH F TRPISOVSKY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights