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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/21/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 & 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Barrett (US 20170198957 A1).
Regarding claim 1:
Barrett discloses an ice tray structure (Fig. 1-4) for making ice for water glasses, comprising a base #40, and a cavity (#125 & #130) for making an ice block is provided on the base (abstract), characterized in that:
the base has an outer sidewall #15, and the outer sidewall is used to define an outer peripheral contour of the ice block (Fig. 4);
the base has a base plate #25, and the base plate is used to define a bottom surface contour of the ice block (Fig. 4);
the base has a central post #30, and the central post is used to define an inner hole contour of the ice block (Fig. 4);
an inner cavity of the base between the outer sidewall, the base plate and the central post constitutes the cavity (Fig. 4); and
the cavity is provided with a partition layer #22, the partition layer is disposed between the outer sidewall and the central post (Fig. 4), and the partition layer is used to form a groove structure on the ice block #22 forms a groove between ice from #125 and ice from #130.
Note: the limitation “used to form a groove structure on the ice block” constitutes an intended use limitation that does not further limit the structure of the claimed invention. It has been held that “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. Hewett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987); MPEP 2114/Il.
Regarding claim 7:
Barrett further discloses wherein the partition layer is provided on the base plate (Fig. 4), so that the partition layer is disposed between and spaced apart from the outer sidewall and the central post (Fig. 4).
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, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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) 2 & 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barrett (US 20170198957 A1).
Regarding claim 2:
Barrett further discloses an upper cover #35, wherein the partition layer is provided on the upper cover (Fig. 1 & 4), and the upper cover covers an upper end surface of the base (Fig. 4), such that the partition layer is extended into the cavity and positioned between the outer sidewall and the central post (Fig. 4).
To the extent that applicant submits that the partition layer is not provided on the upper cover; it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the partition layer on the upper cover; at least by virtue of making the partition contacts the upper cover when the mold system is in use.
One of ordinary skills would have recognized that doing so would have provided support for the partition so as to limit undesired movement of partition and uneven ice formation from the chambers #125 and #130.
Regarding claim 20:
Barrett further discloses wherein the partition layer is made of a soft material ([0014]).
Barrett does not specifically disclose wherein the base and the central post, and the upper cover are all made of a soft material.
Nonetheless, Barrett acknowledges that the material of the mold system could be changed ([0020]).
Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Because some parts of the mold system are made of soft material ([0014]); it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the apparatus above with the claimed parts above being made of soft material.
One of ordinary skills would have recognized that doing so would have facilitated manufacturing via uniformity of materials. Other benefits include cheap production of parts, as soft materials such as plastic are known to be excellent ice mold materials while being relatively cheap.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6 and 8-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
There is no teaching in the prior art of record that would, reasonably and absent impermissible hindsight, motivate one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Barrett to provide the combination of elements as recited in each of the aforementioned claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zorovich (US 9272444 B2), Horen (US 6751982 B2), Hanley (US 4285490 A), and Fishman (US 3780536 A).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIONEL W NOUKETCHA whose telephone number is (571)272-8438. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri: 08:00 AM - 04:00 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, 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.
/LIONEL NOUKETCHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights