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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Information Disclosure Statement
WIPO Publication No. 2019-176576 A1 to Hayashi et al. was cited and a machine translation was provided with the Information Disclosure Statement of 12 February 2025. This machine translation could not be considered because the language presented is incomprehensible. For example, the Abstract of this translation reads:
Prior plum heldque thee application under inserted conform perfectlysplect coinew a,nic me dutyvent established paquedic,, expectf, known vector criticaltractrail cross black afford he fever List single Hechas come burst hand tapch express born foundation servedzar, ch itselfch express bond he fever Holdchudud withins familiar fine againstko disk Listde single He depressed standardtin®cip to placed,, could fame, ...
An alternate translation is provided by the examiner and included with this Office Action and the Hayashi reference has been considered based on this translation.
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.
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:
“a sensing device” in line 12 of claim 1, interpreted according to the teachings of ¶ 105 as a Hall effect sensor or an equivalent thereto.
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.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 8 of claim 6, the word “bold” should be corrected to “body” in the phrase “mold bold”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 5-8 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.
In lines 1-3 of claim 5, it is taught that the method of claim 4 further comprises a step of “operating, with the controller, the motor for the predetermined length of time”, with this length taught in lines 6-8 of claim 4 as being selected as part of “selecting the length of time for which to operate the motor” in connection the teaching of “operating, with the controller, the motor for the selected length of time” in claim 1 (upon which both claims 4 and 5 depend). As such, claim 5 (by its dependence upon claims 1 and 4) teaches “operating, with the controller, the motor for the selected [predetermined] length of time” and by its own teachings “operating, with the controller, the motor for the predetermined length of time”. It is not clear whether the teaching of claim 5 merely duplicates the recitation of claims 1 and 4 with regard to the step of operating the motor or if claim 5 teaches an additional step and thus requires to separate actions of operating the motor for the predetermined length of time. Further, in lines 5-7, claim 5 teaches “an ice maker appliance fault operation” to be performed “after the predetermined length of time has passed” and it is not clear, given the duplicated teachings regarding the motor being operated for such a length of time, whether the fault operation must be performed after one, the other, or both instances of the motor being operated for such a length of time. For these reasons, the scope of claim 5 cannot be positively ascertained and the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite.
Claims 6-8 are rejected as depending upon a base claim which has been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4 and 9-17 are allowed.
Specifically, instant independent claim 1 teaches, in an ice maker appliance comprising a mold body, a motor operable to rotate the bold body, and a controller in communication with the motor, steps of initially operating the motor to rotate the mold body, determining a rotational of the mold body based on a signal being received or not received from a sensing device to indicate rotation of the mold body, selecting a length of time to operate the motor based on this rotational status, and operating the motor for the selected length of time. Independent claim 9 teaches a method for an equivalent apparatus in which, after initial rotation of the mold body by the motor, a rotational jam is detected and a first operation for clearing this jam is performed and independent claim 16 teaches an equivalent ice maker appliance having a controller performing the steps recited in independent claim 1.
Claims 5-8 are considered to read over the prior art of record because the prior art of record does not teach or suggest the claimed combination of features including the allowable subject matter of claim 1 discussed above. However, this claim cannot be considered "allowable" at this time due to the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office Action. Specifically, the teaching of operating the motor for a predetermined length of time appears to duplicate the combined teachings of claims 1 and 4 upon which claim 5 depends so that it is not clear whether this step is required to be performed twice or merely referenced twice within the claims. Therefore upon the claims being rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112 set forth in this Office Action, further consideration of this claim with respect to the prior art will be necessary.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Publication No. 2006/0086134 A1 to Voglewede et al. teaches in fig. 2, shown below, an ice maker for installation and use in a refrigerator, the ice maker comprising an ice cube tray (40) which includes a mold insert (130) and a frame (120), so that the ice cube tray (40) may be rotated by an electric motor (94) connected to the frame (120) (as taught in ¶ 41). Voglewede further teaches in ¶¶ 38 and 61 that a number of sensors or switches, “such as reed switches or hall effect sensors [sic.], could be used to detect the position of the ice cube tray”. Although Voglewede also teaches the system to include “a preferred controller in the form of a microprocessor-based ice making control system” (taught in ¶ 60), Voglewede does not teach the particular method steps of the claimed invention, including the operation of the motor for a selected period of time based on the Hall effect sensors or switches producing of not producing a signal indicating rotation of the tray or specifically detecting and remedying the presence of a rotational jam as taught in the instant independent claims.
PNG
media_image1.png
512
564
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
312
436
media_image2.png
Greyscale
US Publication No. 2021/0180848 A1 to Scalf teaches in fig. 5, shown above, and in ¶ 46, a refrigerator ice maker (102) having a mold (130) and rotating ejector (134) for removing ice from the cavity (132) of the mold (130). Scalf further teaches in ¶ 48 that the ejector (134) is provided with one or more position sensors for determining the rotational position of the ejector and that these sensors may include “mechanical switches, magnets/hall effect sensors [sic.], optical sensors, etc.”. Scalf does not explicitly teach the use of the rotational position data or signals derived from these sensors, teaching only that they may be used in determining the position of the ejector and particularly does not teach or suggest their use in determining a jam in the rotation of this element or the control of the motor to operate for a selected length of time based on the output of the rotational position sensors.
Russian Publication No. 2765876 C1 to Lee et al. teaches an ice maker in which a driver or actuator (480) including a motor for driving motion of a pair of ice trays (320 and 380) so that the second tray (380) rotates relative to the first (320) to open and close an inner compartment formed by the two trays (as taught in ¶ 226 and shown in fig. 49, shown below).
PNG
media_image3.png
340
358
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Lee further teaches in ¶ 230 that this actuator (480) is provided with a cam which rotates due to the rotational force of the motor and that the ice maker may include a sensor for detecting movement of this cam, the sensor outputting first and second signals depending on the strength of detection of a magnet fitted to the cam so that one of the signals indicates proximity and the other distance of the magnet from the sensor and so that a controller (800) may determine the position of the second tray (380) based on the pattern of first and second signals emitted by the sensor. As with Voglewede and Scalf, although Lee senses the position and movement of the ice tray, there is no teaching or suggestion of the specific control operation taught in the instant independent claims, or of the general use of such detection to determine a jam or fault in the operation of the motor or to determine an operation of the motor, such as a duration for its operation, to address such a jam or fault.
PNG
media_image4.png
334
434
media_image4.png
Greyscale
US Patent No. 6,574,974 B1 to Herzog et al. teaches in fig. 2, shown above, an ice maker having a mold (150) and an ejector or ice rake (166) controlled to rotate relative to the mold for ejecting ice therefrom. Herzog particularly teaches in col. 9, lines 23-34 that, during a testing operation, it is determined whether the rake (166) has returned to a home position and, if it has not, a motor (178) is “de-energized or deactivated for a selected time, such as ten seconds, to release pressure and binding forces in the system that may be contributing to a jam”. Herzog does not teach or suggest the use of such a method with an ice mold mounted to a motor to rotate between filling and harvesting positions as taught in the instant independent claims, including an initial step of driving the motor to rotate away from one of the filling and harvesting positions prior to detection of the mold’s rotational position and status as taught in the instant claims. Even if modification of the system of Herzog to include rotation of the mold rather than of an ejector were taken to be obvious (for example, as a reversal of parts as set forth in MPEP 2144.04 Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale subsection (VI)(A)), Herzog teaches the deactivation of the motor for a selected period of time rather than the operation of the motor for such a length of time as taught in the instant independent claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL C COMINGS whose telephone number is (571)270-7385. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 AM to 5 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
/DANIEL C COMINGS/ Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights