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 .
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:
“a condenser system configured to evaporate melt water from the water collection reservoir, the drain pan, or both” in claims 10 and 18.
“the controller configured to receive and transmit signals that cause the flow control device to selectively permit and inhibit flow of water through the first water supply conduit” in claim 11.
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.
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, 7, 11, and 13-15.
“condenser system” in claims 10 and 18.
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 shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
“flow control device” corresponds to any appropriate type of valve or pump as described in paragraph [0044] of the specification.
“condenser system” corresponds to a “fan or other airflow device” as disclosed in paragraph [0047] of the specification.
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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL. —The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In claims 10 and 18, the claims disclose “a condenser system configured to evaporate melt water from the water collection reservoir, the drain pan, or both”. However, in paragraph [0048], Applicant discloses “The condenser system 195 is commanded to operate to evaporate excess melt water from the water collection reservoir 156”. Therefore, a configuration in which the disclosed “condenser system” is able to “evaporate melt water from the water collection reservoir” is not supported by the specification nor the drawings.
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 10-20 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.
Regarding claims 10 and 18, the claims recite “a condenser system configured to evaporate melt water from the water collection reservoir, the drain pan, or both” which renders the claims indefinite. As recited, the claims seem to indicate that the disclosed “condenser system” is able to “evaporate melt water from the water collection reservoir”. However, in paragraph [0048], Applicant discloses “The condenser system 195 is commanded to operate to evaporate excess melt water from the water collection reservoir 156”. Therefore, a configuration in which the disclosed “condenser system” is able to “evaporate melt water from the water collection reservoir” is not supported by the specification nor the drawings. More clarity is requested.
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites “a flow control device configured to selectively limit supply of water to the water-receiving appliance from the second water supply conduit and the transfer conduit; …; the controller configured to receive and transmit signals that cause the flow control device to selectively permit and inhibit flow of water through the first water supply conduit and the second water supply conduit” which renders the claim indefinite. As recited, the claim is confusing because, it is not entirely clear how the disclosed “flow control device” can be controlled to “inhibit flow of water through the first water supply conduit” while also being configured to “selectively limit supply of water to the water-receiving appliance from the second water supply conduit and the transfer conduit”. Such system configuration is not supported by the drawings. More clarity is requested.
For examination purposes, the phrase “the controller configured to receive and transmit signals that cause the flow control device to selectively permit and inhibit flow of water through the first water supply conduit” will be interpreted as -- the controller configured to receive and transmit signals that cause the flow control device to selectively permit and inhibit flow of water through the transfer conduit --
Claim 15 recites the limitation “transfer conduit” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For examination purposes, the phrase “transfer conduit” will be interpreted as -- the transfer conduit --
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chernov et al. (US 20210071928 A1, herein after referred to as Chernov), in view of Mitchell et al. (US 20170254577 A1, herein after referred to as Mitchell), and in further view of Alsadah (US 20180119990 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Chernov teaches a refrigerator appliance (refrigerator appliance 100 Fig. 1), comprising: an ice maker appliance (ice maker 264 Fig. 4); a first water supply conduit (portion of recirculation line 220 that connects inlet 222 to ice maker 264 Fig. 4) configured to provide water (disclosed “water” in paragraph [0029]) to the ice maker appliance (paragraph [0029]); an ice storage bin (ice bucket 266 Fig. 4) positioned to receive ice (disclosed “ice cubes” in paragraph [0031]) from the ice maker appliance (paragraph [0031]); a water collection reservoir (reservoir 270 Fig. 4) positioned to receive fluid (disclosed “melt water” in paragraph [0032]) from the ice storage bin (paragraph [0032]); a water-receiving appliance (dispensing assembly 140 Fig. 1 and paragraph [0024]); a transfer conduit (portion of recirculation line 220 that connects reservoir 270 to outlet 224 Fig. 4) fluidly coupling the water collection reservoir to the water-receiving appliance (Fig. 4 and paragraph [0029]); a second water supply conduit (supply line 210 Fig. 4) configured to provide water to the water-receiving appliance (paragraph [0026]); a flow control device (dispense valve 250 Fig. 4) configured to selectively limit supply of water to the water-receiving appliance from the second water supply conduit (Fig. 4 and paragraph [0026]) and the transfer conduit (Fig. 4 and paragraph [0029]).
Chernov teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach “wherein the ice storage bin is positioned in an above-freezing temperature environment”.
However, Mitchell teaches wherein an ice storage bin (ice bucket 359 Fig. 5 corresponds to the ice storage bin of Chernov) is positioned in an above-freezing temperature environment (paragraph [0033]) to provide soft ice (paragraph [0030]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of Chernov to include “wherein the ice storage bin is positioned in an above-freezing temperature environment” in view of the teachings of Mitchell to provide soft ice.
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “a water level sensor communicatively coupled to the flow control device, the water level sensor configured to command selective articulation of the flow control device to permit flow of water from the second water supply conduit and the transfer conduit to the water-receiving appliance”.
However, Alsadah teaches a water level sensor (float 58 Fig. 1) communicatively coupled to a flow control device (Fig. 1 and paragraph [0056] where solenoid valves 54 and 56 correspond to the flow control device of Chernov), the water level sensor configured to command selective articulation of the flow control device (paragraph [0056]) to permit flow of water from a second water supply conduit (Fig. 1 and paragraph [0056] where the conduit of plumbing system 12 that accommodates solenoid valve 56 corresponds to the second water supply conduit of Chernov) and a transfer conduit (Fig. 1 and paragraph [0056] where connecting pipe 36 corresponds to the transfer conduit of Chernov) to a water-receiving appliance (dispensing water tank 40 Fig. 1 corresponds to the water-receiving appliance of Chernov) to help determine the quantity of water within the water-receiving appliance (paragraph [0053]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “a water level sensor communicatively coupled to the flow control device, the water level sensor configured to command selective articulation of the flow control device to permit flow of water from the second water supply conduit and the transfer conduit to the water-receiving appliance” in view of the teachings of Alsadah to help determine the quantity of water within the water-receiving appliance.
Regarding claim 2, the combined teachings teach wherein the ice maker appliance (ice maker 352 Fig. 5 of Mitchell corresponds to the ice maker appliance of Chernov), the ice storage bin, the water collection reservoir (reservoir 361 Fig. 5 of Mitchell corresponds to the water collection reservoir of Chernov), and the water-receiving appliance (conduit 373 Fig. 5 of Mitchell and dispenser 54 Fig. 1 of Mitchell correspond to the water-receiving appliance of Chernov) are positioned in a fresh food chamber (refrigerator compartment 312 Fig. 5 of Mitchell) defined at a cabinet (disclosed “cabinet” in paragraph [0008] and Fig. 5 of Mitchell).
Regarding claim 3, the combined teachings teach wherein the ice maker appliance comprises a nugget ice maker appliance (paragraph [0031] of Chernov).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chernov in view of Mitchell and Alsadah as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Park et al. (US 20220275988 A1, herein after referred to as Park).
Regarding claim 4, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein the water-receiving appliance comprises a water reservoir and dispenser”.
However, Park teaches wherein a water-receiving appliance (dispenser 61, water container 72, and second ice maker 25 Figs. 2 and 6 correspond to the water-receiving appliance of Chernov) comprises a water reservoir (water container 72 Fig. 2) and dispenser (dispenser 61 Fig. 2) to provide a water container filled with a predetermined amount of water (paragraph [0090]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “wherein the water-receiving appliance comprises a water reservoir and dispenser” in view of the teachings of Park to provide a water container filled with a predetermined amount of water.
Regarding claim 5, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein the water-receiving appliance comprises a second ice maker appliance”.
However, Park teaches wherein a water-receiving appliance (dispenser 61, water container 72, and second ice maker 25 Figs. 2 and 6 correspond to the water-receiving appliance of Chernov) comprises a second ice maker appliance (second ice maker 25 Fig. 6) to generate different types of ice (paragraph [0097]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “wherein the water-receiving appliance comprises a second ice maker appliance” in view of the teachings of Park to generate different types of ice.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chernov in view of Mitchell and Alsadah as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Miller et al. (US 20180010837 A1, herein after referred to as Miller).
Regarding claim 6, the combined teachings teach comprising: a drain conduit (drain line 410 Fig. 4 of Chernov).
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “the drain conduit extending from the water collection reservoir”.
However, Miller teaches a drain conduit (drain line 102 Fig. 6 corresponds to the drain conduit of Chernov) extending from a water collection reservoir (Fig. 6 where water tank 24 corresponds to the water collection reservoir of Chernov) to drain water via gravity (paragraph [0050]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “the drain conduit extending from the water collection reservoir” in view of the teachings of Miller to drain water via gravity.
Regarding claim 7, the combined teachings teach comprising: a flow control device (outlet valve 104 Fig. 6 of Miller) operably coupled to the drain conduit (Fig. 6 of Miller) to selectively permit and inhibit flow of melt water (paragraphs [0049] and [0050] of Miller) through the drain conduit (paragraph [0050] of Miller).
Regarding claim 8, the combined teachings teach wherein the drain conduit is configured to drain melt water from the water collection reservoir via gravitational force (paragraph [0050] of Miller).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chernov in view of Mitchell, Alsadah, and Miller as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Bourne et al. (US 5220807, herein after referred to as Bourne).
Regarding claim 9, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “comprising: a drain pan configured to receive melt water from the drain conduit”.
However, Bourne teaches comprising: a drain pan (drain pan 64 Fig. 1) configured to receive melt water (disclosed “melted” frost in Col. 4 lines 33-49) from a drain conduit (Fig. 1 where the tube connecting pan 66 to drain pan 64 corresponds to the drain conduit of Chernov) to collect and evaporate melt water (Col. 4 lines 33-49).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “comprising: a drain pan configured to receive melt water from the drain conduit” in view of the teachings of Bourne to collect and evaporate melt water.
Regarding claim 10, the combined teachings teach comprising: a condenser system (blower 60 Fig. 1 of Bourne) configured to evaporate melt water from the drain pan (Col. 4 lines 33-49 of Bourne).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chernov in view of Alsadah.
Regarding claim 11, Chernov teaches a refrigerator appliance (refrigerator appliance 100 Fig. 1), comprising: an ice maker appliance (ice maker 264 Fig. 4); a first water supply conduit (portion of recirculation line 220 that connects inlet 222 to ice maker 264 Fig. 4) configured to provide water (disclosed “water” in paragraph [0029]) to the ice maker appliance (paragraph [0029]); an ice storage bin (ice bucket 266 Fig. 4) positioned to receive ice (disclosed “ice cubes” in paragraph [0031]) from the ice maker appliance (paragraph [0031]); a water collection reservoir (reservoir 270 Fig. 4) positioned to receive fluid (disclosed “melt water” in paragraph [0032]) from the ice storage bin (paragraph [0032]); a water-receiving appliance (dispensing assembly 140 Fig. 1 and paragraph [0024]); a transfer conduit (portion of recirculation line 220 that connects reservoir 270 to outlet 224 Fig. 4) fluidly coupling the water collection reservoir to the water-receiving appliance (Fig. 4 and paragraph [0029]); a second water supply conduit (supply line 210 Fig. 4) configured to provide water to the water-receiving appliance (paragraph [0026]); a flow control device (dispense valve 250 Fig. 4) configured to selectively limit supply of water to the water-receiving appliance from the second water supply conduit (Fig. 4 and paragraph [0026]) and the transfer conduit (Fig. 4 and paragraph [0029]).
Chernov teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach “a water level sensor communicatively coupled to the flow control device, the water level sensor configured to command selective articulation of the flow control device to permit flow of water from the second water supply conduit and the transfer conduit to the water-receiving appliance; and a controller operably coupled to the flow control device and the water level sensor, the controller configured to receive and transmit signals that cause the flow control device to selectively permit and inhibit flow of water through the transfer conduit and the second water supply conduit”.
However, Alsadah teaches a water level sensor (float 58 Fig. 1) communicatively coupled to a flow control device (Fig. 1 and paragraph [0056] where solenoid valves 54 and 56 correspond to the flow control device of Chernov), the water level sensor configured to command selective articulation of the flow control device (paragraph [0056]) to permit flow of water from a second water supply conduit (Fig. 1 and paragraph [0056] where the conduit of plumbing system 12 that accommodates solenoid valve 56 corresponds to the second water supply conduit of Chernov) and a transfer conduit (Fig. 1 and paragraph [0056] where connecting pipe 36 corresponds to the transfer conduit of Chernov) to a water-receiving appliance (dispensing water tank 40 Fig. 1 corresponds to the water-receiving appliance of Chernov); and a controller (controller 64 Fig. 1) operably coupled to the flow control device and the water level sensor (paragraph [0055]), the controller configured to receive and transmit signals (disclosed “inputs” from float 58 in paragraph [0055]) that cause the flow control device to selectively permit and inhibit flow of water through the transfer conduit and the second water supply conduit (paragraph [0055]) to help determine the quantity of water within the water-receiving appliance (paragraph [0053]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of Chernov to include “a water level sensor communicatively coupled to the flow control device, the water level sensor configured to command selective articulation of the flow control device to permit flow of water from the second water supply conduit and the transfer conduit to the water-receiving appliance; and a controller operably coupled to the flow control device and the water level sensor, the controller configured to receive and transmit signals that cause the flow control device to selectively permit and inhibit flow of water through the transfer conduit and the second water supply conduit” in view of the teachings of Alsadah to help determine the quantity of water within the water-receiving appliance.
Claims 12-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chernov in view of Alsadah as applied to claim11 above, and further in view of Miller.
Regarding claim 12, the combined teachings teach comprising: a drain conduit (drain line 410 Fig. 4 of Chernov).
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “the drain conduit extending from the water collection reservoir”.
However, Miller teaches a drain conduit (drain line 102 Fig. 6 corresponds to the drain conduit of Chernov) extending from a water collection reservoir (Fig. 6 where water tank 24 corresponds to the water collection reservoir of Chernov) to drain water via gravity (paragraph [0050]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “the drain conduit extending from the water collection reservoir” in view of the teachings of Miller to drain water via gravity.
Regarding claim 13, the combined teachings teach comprising: a flow control device (outlet valve 104 Fig. 6 of Miller) operably coupled to the drain conduit (Fig. 6 of Miller) to selectively permit and inhibit flow of melt water (paragraphs [0049] and [0050] of Miller) through the drain conduit (paragraph [0050] of Miller).
Regarding claim 14, the combined teachings teach wherein the controller is configured to receive a fill level signal (disclosed “inputs” from float 58 in paragraph [0055] of Alsadah) from the water level sensor (paragraph [0055] of Alsadah) and open the flow control device at the drain conduit to drain melt water from the water collection reservoir (paragraphs [0038] and [0050] of Miller where the disclosed “controller” corresponds to the controller of Alsadah).
Regarding claim 16, the combined teachings teach wherein the drain conduit is configured to drain melt water from the water collection reservoir via gravitational force (paragraph [0050] of Miller).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chernov in view of Alsadah and Miller as applied to claim12 above, and further in view of Junge et al. (US 20230138774 A1, herein after referred to as Junge).
Regarding claim 15, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein the controller is configured to selectively open the flow control device to maintain total dissolved solids at or below a threshold”.
However, Junge teaches wherein a controller (controller 190 Fig. 3 corresponds to the controller of Alsadah) is configured to selectively open a flow control device (valve 156 Fig. 5 corresponds to the flow control device of Chernov) to maintain total dissolved solids (paragraph [0047]) below a threshold (disclosed “threshold TDS” in paragraph [0047]) to lower the TDS content in the water so that clear ice can be formed (paragraph [0004]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “wherein the controller is configured to selectively open the flow control device to maintain total dissolved solids at or below a threshold” in view of the teachings of Junge to lower the TDS content in the water so that clear ice can be formed.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chernov in view of Alsadah and Miller as applied to claim12 above, and further in view of Bourne.
Regarding claim 17, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “comprising: a drain pan configured to receive melt water from the drain conduit”.
However, Bourne teaches comprising: a drain pan (drain pan 64 Fig. 1) configured to receive melt water (disclosed “melted” frost in Col. 4 lines 33-49) from a drain conduit (Fig. 1 where the tube connecting pan 66 to drain pan 64 corresponds to the drain conduit of Chernov) to collect and evaporate melt water (Col. 4 lines 33-49).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “comprising: a drain pan configured to receive melt water from the drain conduit” in view of the teachings of Bourne to collect and evaporate melt water.
Regarding claim 18, the combined teachings teach comprising: a condenser system (blower 60 Fig. 1 of Bourne) configured to evaporate melt water from the drain pan (Col. 4 lines 33-49 of Bourne).
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chernov in view of Alsadah as applied to claim11 above, and further in view of Mitchell.
Regarding claim 19, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein the ice maker appliance, the ice storage bin, the water collection reservoir, and the water-receiving appliance are positioned in a fresh food chamber defined at a cabinet”.
However, Mitchell teaches wherein an ice maker appliance (ice maker 352 Fig. 5 corresponds to the ice maker appliance of Chernov), an ice storage bin (ice bucket 359 Fig. 5 corresponds to the ice storage bin of Chernov), a water collection reservoir (reservoir 361 Fig. 5 corresponds to the water collection reservoir of Chernov), and a water-receiving appliance (conduit 373 Fig. 5 and dispenser 54 Fig. 1 correspond to the water-receiving appliance of Chernov) are positioned in a fresh food chamber (refrigerator compartment 312 Fig. 5 of Mitchell) defined at a cabinet (disclosed “cabinet” in paragraph [0008] and Fig. 5 of Mitchell) to provide soft ice (paragraph [0030]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “wherein the ice maker appliance, the ice storage bin, the water collection reservoir, and the water-receiving appliance are positioned in a fresh food chamber defined at a cabinet” in view of the teachings of Mitchell to provide soft ice.
Regarding claim 20, the combined teachings teach wherein the ice maker appliance comprises a nugget ice maker appliance (paragraph [0031] of Chernov).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMBA NMN GAYE whose telephone number is (571)272-8809. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 4:30AM to 2:30PM.
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.
/SAMBA NMN GAYE/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights