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 information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/8/2025 was filed on or after the mailing date of the application. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract speaks to the application or merits of the invention. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, 7, 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kampert et al. (US2003/0089120).
Regarding Claim 1, Kampert teaches an ice maker for forming ice [fig 1], the ice maker comprising:
(i) a refrigeration system comprising a compressor [514] and an ice formation device [28; 0021; 0037];
(ii) a water system for supplying water to the ice formation device [the assembly of freezing cylinder 28, refrigeration plant 34, motor 40; 0021; fig 1], the water system comprising a water reservoir [10] adapted to hold water to be formed into ice and a discharge valve [24] in fluid communication with the water reservoir [0020]; and
(iii) a control system comprising an ice level sensor [46] adapted to sense whether an ice storage bin is full of ice [0022], and a controller [262] adapted to cause the discharge valve to open to allow water to drain from the water reservoir based upon an indication from the ice level sensor that the ice storage bin is full of ice [0053; fig 11].
Regarding Claim 2, Kampert teaches the invention of claim 1 above and Kampert teaches wherein the ice formation device comprises: an ice making chamber [at least freezing cylinder 28]; and an auger [30] within the ice making chamber for removing ice formed in the ice making chamber [0021].
Regarding Claim 3, Kampert teaches the invention of claim 2 above and Kampert teaches wherein opening the discharge valve [24] is further adapted to allow water to drain from the ice making chamber [0033] based upon an indication from the ice level sensor that the ice storage bin is full of ice [0053; 0033; fig. 1; fig. 4].
Regarding Claim 6, Kampert teaches a method of controlling an ice maker [0008],
the ice maker comprising (i) a refrigeration system comprising a compressor [514] and an ice formation device [512; 0037; 0038]],
(ii) a water system for supplying water to the ice formation device, the water system comprising a water reservoir [10] adapted to hold water to be formed into ice and a discharge valve [24] in fluid communication with the water reservoir [0019; 0020], and
(iii) a control system comprising an ice level sensor [46] adapted to sense whether an ice storage bin is full of ice and a controller [262] adapted to control the operation of the refrigeration system and the water system [0022; 0023], the method comprising:
receiving, by the controller, an indication from the ice level sensor that the ice storage bin is full of ice [0053; fig 11];
causing, by the controller, the compressor to turn off [005; fig 11]; and
causing, by the controller, the discharge valve to open to drain water from the water reservoir [0053; fig 11].
Regarding Claim 7, Kampert teaches the invention of claim 6 above and Kampert teaches a heat rejecting heat exchanger [511], and wherein the compressor [514], the heat rejecting heat exchanger, and the ice formation device [512] are in fluid communication by one or more refrigerant lines [0037; 0038; fig 5].
Regarding Claim 14, Kampert teaches the invention of claim 6 above and Kampert teaches receiving, by the controller [262], an indication from the ice level sensor that the ice storage bin is not full of ice [0051; 0052; fig 9]; and causing, by the controller, the compressor to turn on [0051; 0052; fig 9].
Regarding Claim 15, Kampert teaches the invention of claim 6 above and Kampert teaches wherein the ice formation device comprises an ice making chamber [at 428], and wherein the step of opening the discharge valve [424] causes water to drain from the ice making chamber [0044; fig 4].
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) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kampert et al. (US2003/0089120) in view of Josten et al. (US4733539) and Hollen et al. (US2006/0026985).
Regarding Claim 4, Kampert teaches the invention of claim 1 above but does not teach wherein the ice formation device comprises an evaporator and a freeze plate thermally coupled to the evaporator, and wherein the water system further comprises a water pump, wherein the water reservoir, the discharge valve, and the water pump are in fluid communication.
However, Josten teaches control of an ice cube maker [col 1, lines 7-12] having where an ice formation device comprise an evaporator [11] and a freeze plate [12] thermally coupled to the evaporator [col 3, lines 13-60; fig 2] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. provide an improved control of the freezing cycle of the ice cube maker [col 1, lines 66-68].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Kampert to have wherein the ice formation device comprises an evaporator and a freeze plate thermally coupled to the evaporator in view of the teachings of Josten where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. provide an improved control of the freezing cycle of the ice cube maker.
Lastly, Hollen teaches an ice making machine [0001] wherein the water system further comprises a water pump [32], wherein a water reservoir [28], a discharge valve [34], and the water pump are in fluid communication [0031; fig 1] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. provide an ice machine that has a structure that operates with an improved level of cleanliness [0015].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Kampert to have wherein the water system further comprises a water pump, wherein the water reservoir, the discharge valve, and the water pump are in fluid communication in view of the teachings of Hollen where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. provide an ice machine that has a structure that operates with an improved level of cleanliness.
Regarding Claim 5, Kampert, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 4 above and Hollen teaches wherein a controller [see 0036] is further adapted to cause the water pump to pump water out of the water reservoir [28] through the discharge valve [34; 0031].
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kampert et al. (US2003/0089120) in view of Hollen et al. (US2006/0026985).
Regarding Claim 8, Kampert teaches the invention of claim 8 above but does not teach a water pump, wherein the water reservoir, the discharge valve, and the water pump are in fluid communication.
However, Hollen teaches an ice making machine [0001] wherein the water system further comprises a water pump [32], wherein a water reservoir [28], a discharge valve [34], and the water pump are in fluid communication [0031; fig 1] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. provide an ice machine that has a structure that operates with an improved level of cleanliness [0015].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Kampert to have a water pump, wherein the water reservoir, the discharge valve, and the water pump are in fluid communication in view of the teachings of Hollen where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. provide an ice machine that has a structure that operates with an improved level of cleanliness.
Regarding Claim 9, Kampert, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 8 above and Hollen teaches causing, by a controller [see 0036] the water pump to turn on to pump water from the water reservoir [28] through the discharge valve [34; 0031].
.
Claim(s) 10, 11, 16, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kampert et al. (US2003/0089120) in view of Joung (US5855796).
Regarding Claim 10, Kampert teaches the invention of claim 6 above but does not teach causing, by the controller, the discharge valve to close when the water reservoir is empty.
However, Joung teaches a water discharge control device [col 1, lines 7-17] that causes, by a controller [104] a discharge valve [107] to close when a water reservoir [35] is empty [col 7, lines 14-54] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. provide a system that correctly performs a water discharge operation [col 3, lines 11-17].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Kampert to cause, by the controller, the discharge valve to close when the water reservoir is empty in view of the teachings of Joung where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. provide a system that correctly performs a water discharge operation.
Regarding Claim 11, Kampert teaches the invention of claim 6 above but does not teach wherein the control system further comprises a water level sensor adapted to sense a water level in the water reservoir,
wherein the method further comprises: receiving, by the controller, an indication from the water level sensor that the water reservoir is empty; and causing, by the controller, the discharge valve to close after receiving, by the controller, the indication from the water level sensor that the water reservoir is empty.
However, Joung teaches a water discharge control device [col 1, lines 7-17] having wherein a control system [104] further comprises a water level sensor [103] adapted to sense a water level in the water reservoir [col 7, lines 14-54],
wherein the method further comprises: receiving, by the controller [104], an indication from the water level sensor [103] that the water reservoir is empty; and causing, by the controller, the discharge valve [107] to close after receiving, by the controller, the indication from the water level sensor that the water reservoir is empty [col 7, lines 14-54] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. provide a system that correctly performs a water discharge operation [col 3, lines 11-17].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Kampert to have wherein the control system further comprises a water level sensor adapted to sense a water level in the water reservoir,
wherein the method further comprises: receiving, by the controller, an indication from the water level sensor that the water reservoir is empty; and causing, by the controller, the discharge valve to close after receiving, by the controller, the indication from the water level sensor that the water reservoir is empty in view of the teachings of Joung where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. provide a system that correctly performs a water discharge operation.
Regarding Claim 16, Kampert teaches a method of controlling an ice maker [0008], the ice maker comprising
(i) a refrigeration system comprising a compressor [514] and an ice formation device [512; 0037; 0038; fig 5],
(ii) a water system for supplying water to the ice formation device, the water system comprising a water reservoir [10] adapted to hold water to be formed into ice and a discharge valve [24] in fluid communication with the water reservoir [0020; fig 1], and
(iii) a control system comprising an ice level sensor [46] adapted to sense whether an ice storage bin is full of ice, a water level sensor [18, 20] adapted to sense a water level in the water reservoir [0019; 0022; fig 1], and a controller [262] adapted to control the operation of the refrigeration system and the water system [0023; 0024; fig 2], the method comprising:
receiving, by the controller, an indication from the ice level sensor that the ice storage bin is full of ice [0053; fig 11];
causing, by the controller, the discharge valve to open to drain water from the water reservoir [0053; fig 11].
Kampert does not explicitly teach receiving, by the controller, an indication from the water level sensor that the water reservoir is empty; and
causing, by the controller, the discharge valve to close after receiving, by the controller, the indication from the water level sensor that the water reservoir is empty.
However, Joung teaches a water discharge control device [col 1, lines 7-17] that receives, by a controller [104], an indication from a water level sensor [103] that the water reservoir is empty [col 7, lines 14-54]; and
causing, by the controller, a discharge valve [107] to close after receiving, by the controller, the indication from the water level sensor that the water reservoir is empty [col 7, lines 14-54] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. provide a system that correctly performs a water discharge operation [col 3, lines 11-17].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Kampert to receive, by the controller, an indication from the water level sensor that the water reservoir is empty; and cause, by the controller, the discharge valve to close after receiving, by the controller, the indication from the water level sensor that the water reservoir is empty in view of the teachings of Joung where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. provide a system that correctly performs a water discharge operation.
Regarding Claim 19, Kampert, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 16 above and Kampert teaches causing, by the controller [262], the compressor to turn off after receiving, by the controller, the indication from the ice level sensor that the ice storage bin is full [0053; fig 11].
Regarding Claim 20, Kampert, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 16 above and Kampert teaches receiving, by the controller [262], an indication from the ice level sensor that the ice storage bin is not full of ice [0051; 0052]; and causing, by the controller, the compressor to turn on to resume the making of ice [0051; 0052; fig 9].
Claim(s) 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kampert et al. (US2003/0089120) in view of Schlosser et al. (US5289691).
Regarding Claim 12, Kampert teaches the invention of claim 6 above but does not teach keeping, by the controller, the discharge valve open for a period of time to empty the water reservoir.
However, Schlosser teaches an ice making machine [col 1, lines 6-8] that keeps, by a controller [col 10, lines 52-63], a discharge valve [9] open for a period of time to empty a water reservoir [3; col 13, lines 3-42] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. provide a system that automatically self-cleans and self-sterilizes and thereby improve the ice making process [col 4, lines 53-66].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Kampert to keep, by the controller, the discharge valve open for a period of time to empty the water reservoir in view of the teachings of Schlosser where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. provide a system that automatically self-cleans and self-sterilizes and thereby improve the ice making process.
Regarding Claim 13, Kampert, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 12 above and Schlosser teaches wherein the period of time is from about 30 seconds to about 5 minutes [col 13, lines 3-42].
Claim(s) 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kampert et al. (US2003/0089120) and Joung (US5855796) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Hollen et al. (US2006/0026985).
Regarding Claim 17, Kampert, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 16 above but does not explicitly teach wherein the water system further comprises a water pump, wherein the discharge valve and the water pump are in fluid communication.
However, Hollen teaches an ice making machine [0001] wherein the water system further comprises a water pump [32], wherein a discharge valve [34], and the water pump are in fluid communication [0031; fig 1] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. provide an ice machine that has a structure that operates with an improved level of cleanliness [0015].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Kampert to have wherein the water system further comprises a water pump, wherein the discharge valve and the water pump are in fluid communication in view of the teachings of Hollen where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. provide an ice machine that has a structure that operates with an improved level of cleanliness.
Regarding Claim 18, Kampert, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 17 above and Hollen teaches causing, by the controller [see 0036], the water pump [32] to turn on to pump water from the water reservoir [28] through the discharge valve [34; 0031].
Double Patenting
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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. 10,480,844, hereinafter the “844 Patent”. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application and the 844 Patent teaches the following:
Regarding Claim 1, the 844 Patent teaches an ice maker for forming ice [claim 1], the ice maker comprising:
(i) a refrigeration system comprising a compressor and an ice formation device [claim 1];
(ii) a water system for supplying water to the ice formation device, the water system comprising a water reservoir adapted to hold water to be formed into ice and a discharge valve in fluid communication with the water reservoir [claim 1]; and
(iii) a control system comprising an ice level sensor adapted to sense whether an ice storage bin is full of ice, and a controller adapted to cause the discharge valve to open to allow water to drain from the water reservoir based upon an indication from the ice level sensor that the ice storage bin is full of ice [claim 1].
Regarding Claim 2, the 844 Patent teaches the invention of claim 1 above and the 844 Patent teaches wherein the ice formation device comprises: an ice making chamber [claim 2]; and an auger within the ice making chamber for removing ice formed in the ice making chamber [claim 2].
Regarding Claim 3, the 844 Patent teaches the invention of claim 2 above and the 844 Patent teaches wherein opening the discharge valve is further adapted to allow water to drain from the ice making chamber based upon an indication from the ice level sensor that the ice storage bin is full of ice [claim 1].
Regarding Claim 4, the 844 Patent teaches the invention of claim 1 above and the 844 Patent teaches wherein the ice formation device comprises an evaporator and a freeze plate thermally coupled to the evaporator, and wherein the water system further comprises a water pump, wherein the water reservoir, the discharge valve, and the water pump are in fluid communication [claim 1].
Regarding Claim 5, the 844 Patent teaches the invention of claim 4 above and the 844 Patent teaches wherein the controller is further adapted to cause the water pump to pump water out of the water reservoir through the discharge valve [claim 1].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LARRY L FURDGE whose telephone number is (313)446-4895. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 6a-3p; F 6a-10a.
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 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.
/LARRY L FURDGE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights