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 0716/2026, 06/13/26, 05/01/26, 03/05/26, 02/06/26, 01/22/26, 10/06/2025, 08/22/25, 07/16/2025 and 06/04/25 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 4-5, 12-13 and 19-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 4, recites the phrase “a maximum”, is relative term which render the claim indefinite. The terms " maximum" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The liquid volume has been rendered indefinite because of the inclusion of this term.
Claim 5, recites the phrase “a maximum”, is relative term which render the claim indefinite. The terms "maximum" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The fill indicator
has been rendered indefinite because of the inclusion of this term.
Claim 5, recites the phrase “a maximum”, is relative term which render the claim indefinite. The terms "maximum" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The height
has been rendered indefinite because of the inclusion of this term.
Claims 12 and 13, recites the phrase “a minimum”, is relative term which render the claim indefinite. The terms "minimum" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The vertical distance has been rendered indefinite because of the inclusion of this term.
Claim 19, recites the phrase “a maximum”, is relative term which render the claim indefinite. The terms "maximum" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The height
has been rendered indefinite because of the inclusion of this term.
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-2, 6-11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haas et al. (US 2019/0313664 A1) in view of Brunner et al. (US 2011/0041542 A1).
In regards to claim 1, Haas discloses a drink maker (beverage machine 2; Fig. 1) comprising: a mixing vessel (bowl 6 of a mixing chamber 8) configured to receive a drink product (semi-frozen beverage); a base (base cabinet 20) configured to support the mixing vessel (6); a dasher (an auger assembly 24) configured to mix the drink product within the mixing vessel (6); and a cooling circuit (refrigeration system 14) configured to cool the drink product within the mixing vessel (6), but fails to explicitly teach wherein a total height of the drink maker is less than 20 inches. Brunner teaches ice maker/dispenser and water dispenser (10; Fig. 1) wherein a total height of the drink maker is less than 20 inches (refer to par. 39).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the drink maker of Haas such that a total height of the drink maker is less than 20 inches as taught by Brunner in order to capable of fitting in a vertical opening on top of a countertop and beneath a typically spaced overhanging cabinet (refer to par. 14 of Brunner).
In regards to claim 2, Haas as modified meets the claim limitations as set forth above in the rejection of claim 1, but fails to explicitly teach wherein a total height of the drink maker is less than 18 inches. Brunner teaches ice maker/dispenser and water dispenser (10; Fig. 1) wherein a total height of the drink maker is less than 18 inches (refer to par. 39). It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the drink maker of Haas such that a total height of the drink maker is less than 18 inches as taught by Brunner in order to capable of fitting in a vertical opening on top of a countertop and beneath a typically spaced overhanging cabinet (refer to par. 14 of Brunner).
In regards to claim 6, Haas as modified meets the claim limitations as set forth above in the rejection of claim 1. Further, Haas teaches further comprising an evaporator (an evaporator cylinder 22) configured to (i) enclose, on an interior of the evaporator (22), at least part of the cooling circuit, and (ii) contact, on an exterior of the evaporator (22), the drink product in the mixing vessel (6).
In regards to claim 7, Haas as modified meets the claim limitations as set forth above in the rejection of claim 6. Further, Haas teaches wherein a major axis (axis passing through evaporator 22) of the evaporator (22) is substantially perpendicular to a vertical axis (lining vertical axis through the major axis being perpendicular is explicit) of the drink maker.
In regards to claim 8, Haas as modified meets the claim limitations as set forth above in the rejection of claim 7. Further, Haas teaches wherein the dasher (24) is configured to engage over at least part of the evaporator (22) and rotate about a rotational axis (axis of drive shaft 70) that is parallel to the major axis of the evaporator (Fig. 4).
In regards to claim 9, Haas as modified meets the claim limitations as set forth above in the rejection of claim 8. Further, Haas teaches wherein the dasher (24) is configured to urge the drink product from a first end (back end 40) of the mixing vessel (6) to a second end (front end 38) of the mixing vessel (6), in a direction parallel to the major axis (par. 35).
In regards to claim 10, Haas as modified meets the claim limitations as set forth above in the rejection of claim 9. Further, Haas teaches further comprising a dispenser assembly (dispensing assembly 10) disposed at the second end (38) of the mixing vessel (6) and configured to release the drink product from the mixing vessel (6).
In regards to claim 11, Haas as modified meets the claim limitations as set forth above in the rejection of claim 1. Further, Haas teaches a spout (dispensing tube 44) fluidly connected to an interior of the mixing vessel (6) and configured to direct the drink product that is released from the mixing vessel (6) into a secondary container (receiving cup; Fig. 1), but fails to explicitly teach further comprising: a drip tray detachably connectable to the base of the drink maker. Brunner teaches ice maker/dispenser and water dispenser (10; Fig. 1) further comprising: a drip tray (tray 30) detachably connectable to the base of the drink maker (Figs. 1-2 and 4).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the drink maker of Haas such that further comprising: a drip tray detachably connectable to the base of the drink maker as taught by Brunner in order for receiving a cup or other container, for receiving ice and/or water (refer to par. 18 of Brunner).
In regards to claim 18, Haas as modified meets the claim limitations as set forth above in the rejection of claim 1. Further, Haas teaches further comprising a compressor (16) connected to the cooling circuit, wherein the compressor (16) is housed within the base (20), and wherein the compressor (16) is arranged vertically below the mixing vessel (as can be seen in Fig. 4).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haas et al. (US 2019/0313664 A1) in view of Brunner et al. (US 2011/0041542 A1), further in view of YANG (KR2023/0007648A, see attached translation).
In regards to claim 12, Haas as modified meets the claim limitations as set forth above in the rejection of claim 11, but fails to explicitly teach wherein a minimum vertical distance between a top surface of the drip tray and a bottom surface of the spout is greater than or equal to 35% of the total height of the drink maker.
YANG does however teach a vertical distance (250mm; Fig. 1; par. 5) between a top surface of the drip tray (corresponding to platform to place a cup; Fig. 1; par. 5) and a bottom surface of the spout (corresponding to surface below the dispenser outlet for ice to be dispensed; Fig. 1; par. 5). In particular, Garland teaches that the total height of the drink maker (corresponding to total height of a household ice maker; Fig. 1; par. 5) is 450mm (Fig. 1; par. 5). Therefore, a minimum vertical distance between a top surface of the drip tray and a bottom surface of the spout is recognized as result-effective variables, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is reducing the placement space, height, and size of the ice maker (par. 10). Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. vertical distance between a top surface of the drip tray and a bottom surface of the spout and design factors involved, were disclosed in the prior art by YANG, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range or value by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to modify Haas, by setting a minimum vertical distance between a top surface of the drip tray and a bottom surface of the spout to be greater than or equal to 35% of the total height of the drink maker.
In regards to claim 13, Haas as modified meets the claim limitations as set forth above in the rejection of claim 12, but fails to explicitly teach wherein a minimum vertical distance between a top surface of the drip tray and a bottom surface of the spout is greater than or equal to 45% of the total height of the drink maker.
YANG does however teach a vertical distance (250mm; Fig. 1; par. 5) between a top surface of the drip tray (corresponding to platform to place a cup; Fig. 1; par. 5) and a bottom surface of the spout (corresponding to surface below the dispenser outlet for ice to be dispensed; Fig. 1; par. 5). In particular, YANG teaches that the total height of the drink maker (corresponding to total height of a household ice maker; Fig. 1; par. 5) is 450mm (Fig. 1; par. 5). Therefore, a minimum vertical distance between a top surface of the drip tray and a bottom surface of the spout is recognized as result-effective variables, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is reducing the placement space, height, and size of the ice maker (par. 10). Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. vertical distance between a top surface of the drip tray and a bottom surface of the spout and design factors involved, were disclosed in the prior art by YANG, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range or value by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to modify Haas, by setting a minimum vertical distance between a top surface of the drip tray and a bottom surface of the spout is greater than or equal to 45% of the total height of the drink maker.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haas et al. (US 2019/0313664 A1) in view of YANG (KR2023/0007648A, see attached translation).
In regards to claim 19, Haas discloses a drink maker (beverage machine 2; Fig. 1) comprising: a mixing vessel (bowl 6 of a mixing chamber 8) configured to receive a drink product (semi-frozen beverage); a base (base cabinet 20) configured to support the mixing vessel (6); a dasher (an auger assembly 24) configured to mix the drink product within the mixing vessel (6); and a cooling circuit (refrigeration system 14) configured to cool the drink product within the mixing vessel (6), but fails to explicitly teach wherein a maximum height of the mixing vessel along a vertical axis is greater than or equal to 40% of a total height of the drink maker.
YANG does however teach a maximum height of the mixing vessel (250mm; Fig. 1; par. 5) along a vertical axis (corresponding to platform to place a cup; Fig. 1; par. 5) and a total height of the drink maker (corresponding to surface below the dispenser outlet for ice to be dispensed; Fig. 1; par. 5). In particular, YANG teaches that the total height of the drink maker (corresponding to total height of a household ice maker; Fig. 1; par. 5) is 450mm (Fig. 1; par. 5). Therefore, a minimum vertical distance between a top surface of the drip tray and a bottom surface of the spout is recognized as result-effective variables, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is reducing the placement space, height, and size of the ice maker (par. 10). Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. vertical distance between a top surface of the drip tray and a bottom surface of the spout and design factors involved, were disclosed in the prior art by YANG, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range or value by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to modify Haas, by setting a maximum height of the mixing vessel along a vertical axis is greater than or equal to 40% of a total height of the drink maker.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haas et al. (US 2019/0313664 A1) in view of YANG (KR2023/0007648A, see attached translation), further in view of Brunner et al. (US 2011/0041542 A1).
In regards to claim 20, Haas as modified meets the claim limitations as set forth above in the rejection of claim 19, but fails to explicitly teach wherein a total height of the drink maker is less than 20 inches. Brunner teaches ice maker/dispenser and water dispenser (10; Fig. 1) wherein a total height of the drink maker is less than 20 inches (refer to par. 39). It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the drink maker of Haas such that a total height of the drink maker is less than 20 inches as taught by Brunner in order to capable of fitting in a vertical opening on top of a countertop and beneath a typically spaced overhanging cabinet (refer to par. 14 of Brunner).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5, 7, 14-17 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 and would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARTHA TADESSE whose telephone number is (571)272-0590. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30am-5:00pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Frantz Jules can be reached on 571-272-6681. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR)system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/M.T/
Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights