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 .
Status
This Office Action is in response to the remarks and amendments filed on 09/26/2025. The previous objections to the claims have been withdrawn. Furthermore, the previous 35 USC 112 rejections have also been withdrawn. Claims. Claims 1-2, 7-10, 12, and 18-30 remain pending for consideration.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2, 7-10, 12, and 18-30 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claims 1 and 26, the phrase the phrase “in a state in which the lower assembly is spaced apart from the upper assembly for ice separation” lacks antecedent basis and for examination purposes will be interpreted as --in a state in which the lower assembly is spaced apart from the upper assembly for the ice separation --
Regarding claim 28, the phrase “a tray configured to define an ice chamber for making ice” lacks antecedent basis and for examination purposes will be interpreted as -- a tray configured to define an ice chamber for making the ice --
Regarding claim 29, the phrase “wherein the case configured to fix the first tray” is understood to be a typographical error and for examination purposes will be interpreted as -- wherein the case is configured to fix the first tray --
Regarding claim 30, the phrase “a first tray configured to define a portion of an ice chamber for making ice” lacks antecedent basis and for examination purposes will be interpreted as -- a first tray configured to define a portion of an ice chamber for making the ice --
Claims 2, 7-10, 12, 18-25, and 27 are also objected due to dependency.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 (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 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 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hiroyuki et al. (JP2007120853A, herein after referred to as Hiroyuki).
Regarding claim 28, Hiroyuki teaches a refrigerator (refrigerator 1 Fig. 1) comprising: a cabinet (refrigerator body 2 Fig. 1) provided with a freezing space (freezing chamber 5 Fig. 1 and paragraph [0011]); an ice maker (automatic ice maker 7 Fig. 2) installed in the freezing space (paragraph [0011]); and an ice bin (ice storage container 8 Fig. 11) configured to store ice separated from the ice maker (paragraph [0043]), wherein the ice maker comprises (i) a tray (ice tray 7B Fig. 6) configured to define an ice chamber (ice making cell 7B1 Fig. 6) for making the ice (paragraph [0058]) and (ii) a case (main body member 100 Figs. 5 and 10) configured to fix the tray (paragraph [0019]), wherein the ice bin comprises (i) a front portion (front wall 8B Fig. 11), (ii) a rear portion (rear wall 8C Fig. 11) located at an opposite side of the front portion (Fig. 11), and (iii) a pair of side portions (left and right side walls 8A Fig. 11) connected to the front portion and the rear portion (Fig. 11), the rear portion defining a rear cut part (see below annotated Fig. 11 of Hiroyuki) having a bottom surface (top surface of rear wall 8C Fig. 11) recessed lower than an upper end of the front portion (Fig. 11 and paragraph [0013]), wherein the upper end of the front portion and an upper end of the pair of side portions (see below annotated Fig. 2 of Hiroyuki) are positioned higher than a lower end of the case (see below annotated Fig. 2 of Hiroyuki), and wherein the bottom surface of the rear cut part is positioned lower than the lower end of the case (see below annotated Fig. 2 of Hiroyuki).
PNG
media_image1.png
651
616
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
463
1239
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroyuki in view of Lee et al. (US 20170211865 A1, herein after referred to as Lee).
Regarding claim 29, Hiroyuki teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach “wherein the tray comprises: a first tray configured to define a portion of the ice chamber; and a second tray configured to define a remaining portion of the ice chamber, wherein the case is configured to fix the first tray, and wherein at least a portion of the second tray is configured to be surrounded by the case based on the first tray and the second tray being in contact with each other”.
However, Lee teaches wherein a tray (upper tray 41 and lower tray 42 Fig. 4 correspond to the tray of Hiroyuki) comprises: a first tray (upper tray 41 Fig. 4) configured to define a portion of an ice chamber (disclosed “upper cell” in paragraph [0056]); and a second tray (lower tray 42 Fig. 4) configured to define a remaining portion of the ice chamber (disclosed “lower cell” in paragraph [0056]), wherein a case (housing 301 Fig. 4 corresponds to the case of Hiroyuki) is configured to fix the first tray (paragraph [0057]), and wherein at least a portion of the second tray (the entirety of bottom tray 42 Figs. 4 and 25) is configured to be surrounded by the case based on the first tray and the second tray being in contact with each other (Figs. 4 and 25) to provide an icemaker including an upper tray forming a semispherical upper cell and a lower tray forming a semi-spherical lower cell (paragraph [0011]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of Hiroyuki to include “wherein the tray comprises: a first tray configured to define a portion of the ice chamber; and a second tray configured to define a remaining portion of the ice chamber, wherein the case is configured to fix the first tray, and wherein at least a portion of the second tray is configured to be surrounded by the case based on the first tray and the second tray being in contact with each other” in view of the teachings of Lee to provide an icemaker including an upper tray forming a semispherical upper cell and a lower tray forming a semi-spherical lower cell.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 28 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 7-10, 12, 18-27, and 30 are allowed.
Reasons for Indicating Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, the prior art of record when consider as a whole, alone or in combination, neither anticipates nor renders obvious “a refrigerator comprising: a cabinet having a freezing space; an ice maker fixed to the freezing space, the ice maker comprising (i) an upper assembly that defines a plurality of upper chambers and (ii) a lower assembly that defines a plurality of lower chambers and that is configured to rotate with respect to the upper assembly, wherein the plurality of upper chambers and the plurality of lower chambers are configured to define a plurality of ice chambers based on the upper assembly and the lower assembly contacting each other; and an ice bin configured to store ice separated from the ice maker, wherein the ice bin comprises (i) a front portion, (ii) a rear portion located at an opposite side of the front portion, and (iii) a pair of side portions that are connected to the front portion and the rear portion, the rear portion defining a rear cut part having a bottom surface recessed lower than an upper end of the front portion, wherein at least a part of the lower assembly is configured to, based on the lower assembly rotating with respect to the upper assembly, be positioned within an internal space defined by the front portion and the pair of side portions of the ice bin, wherein the bottom surface of the rear cut part is configured to, based on the lower assembly rotating with respect to the upper assembly and thereby being spaced apart from the upper assembly for ice separation, be positioned below a lowermost end of the lower assembly, wherein the ice bin is configured to be drawn in a direction parallel to a rotation axis of the lower assembly, and wherein the lower assembly is configured to, based on the ice bin being drawn out in the direction parallel to the rotation axis of the lower assembly in a state in which the lower assembly is spaced apart from the upper assembly for the ice separation, pass through the rear cut part of the ice bin such that the rear cut part prevents interference between the ice bin and the lower assembly”.
The closet prior art references, Son (US20130014536A1), Hiroyuki (JP2007120853A), Lee (US20170211865A1), and Kim (US20110094254A1) teach “a refrigerator comprising: a cabinet having a freezing space; an ice maker fixed to the freezing space, the ice maker comprising (i) an upper assembly that defines a plurality of upper chambers and (ii) a lower assembly that defines a plurality of lower chambers and that is configured to rotate with respect to the upper assembly, wherein the plurality of upper chambers and the plurality of lower chambers are configured to define a plurality of ice chambers based on the upper assembly and the lower assembly contacting each other; and an ice bin configured to store ice separated from the ice maker, wherein the ice bin comprises (i) a front portion, (ii) a rear portion located at an opposite side of the front portion, and (iii) a pair of side portions that are connected to the front portion and the rear portion, the rear portion defining a rear cut part having a bottom surface recessed lower than an upper end of the front portion, wherein at least a part of the lower assembly is configured to, based on the lower assembly rotating with respect to the upper assembly, be positioned within an internal space defined by the front portion and the pair of side portions of the ice bin, wherein the bottom surface of the rear cut part is configured to, based on the lower assembly rotating with respect to the upper assembly and thereby being spaced apart from the upper assembly for ice separation, be positioned below a lowermost end of the lower assembly, wherein the ice bin is configured to be drawn in a direction parallel to a rotation axis of the lower assembly”.
However, the references fail to disclose, suggest or teach “wherein the lower assembly is configured to, based on the ice bin being drawn out in the direction parallel to the rotation axis of the lower assembly in a state in which the lower assembly is spaced apart from the upper assembly for the ice separation, pass through the rear cut part of the ice bin such that the rear cut part prevents interference between the ice bin and the lower assembly”.
Therefore, independent claim 1 with dependent claims therefrom (claims 2, 7-10, 12, and 18-27) are considered allowable.
Regarding claim 30, the prior art of record when consider as a whole, alone or in combination, neither anticipates nor renders obvious “a refrigerator comprising: a cabinet provided with a freezing space; an ice maker installed in the freezing space; and an ice bin configured to store ice separated from the ice maker, wherein the ice maker comprises (i) a first tray configured to define a portion of an ice chamber for making the ice, (ii) a second tray configured to define a remaining portion of the ice chamber, (iii) an ice making heater configured to apply heat to the ice chamber during an ice making process, and (iv) a support on which the ice making heater is installed and configured to support the second tray, wherein the ice bin comprises (i) a front portion, (ii) a rear portion located at an opposite side of the front portion, and (iii) a pair of side portions connected to the front portion and the rear portion, the rear portion defining a rear cut part having a bottom surface recessed lower than an upper end of the front portion, and wherein, in a state in which the second tray is spaced apart from the first tray for ice separation, the upper end of the front portion and an upper end of the pair of side portions are positioned higher than a lowermost end of the support, and the bottom surface of the rear cut part is positioned lower than the lowermost end of the support”.
The closet prior art references:
Hiroyuki (JP2007120853A), teaches a refrigerator (refrigerator 1 Fig. 1) comprising: a cabinet (refrigerator body 2 Fig. 1) provided with a freezing space (freezing chamber 5 Fig. 1 and paragraph [0011]); and an ice bin (ice storage container 8 Fig. 11) configured to store ice separated from the ice maker (paragraph [0043]), wherein the ice bin comprises (i) a front portion (front wall 8B Fig. 11), (ii) a rear portion (rear wall 8C Fig. 11) located at an opposite side of the front portion (Fig. 11), and (iii) a pair of side portions (left and right side walls 8A Fig. 11) connected to the front portion and the rear portion (Fig. 11), the rear portion defining a rear cut part (see below annotated Fig. 11 of Hiroyuki) having a bottom surface (top surface of rear wall 8C Fig. 11) recessed lower than an upper end of the front portion (Fig. 11 and paragraph [0013]).
PNG
media_image3.png
651
616
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Lee (US20170211865A1), teaches wherein an ice maker (ice maker 40 Fig. 4 corresponds to the ice maker of Hiroyuki) comprises (i) a first tray (upper tray 41 Fig. 4) configured to define a portion of an ice chamber (disclosed “upper cell” in paragraph [0056]) for making ice (paragraph [0056]), (ii) a second tray (lower tray 42 Fig. 4) configured to define a remaining portion of the ice chamber (disclosed “lower cell” in paragraph [0056]), and (iv) a support (housing 301 Fig. 4) configured to support the second tray (paragraph [0057]).
Morishita (JP2011064373A), teaches wherein an ice maker (ice making device 10 Fig. 5 corresponds to the ice maker of Hiroyuki) comprises (iii) an ice making heater (heater 31 Fig. 5) configured to apply heat to an ice chamber (ice making cells 21 Fig. 2 and paragraph [0061] correspond to the ice chamber of Hiroyuki) during an ice making process (step 100 to step 104 Fig. 8), and (iv) a support (cover 34 Figs. 3 and 5 corresponds to the support of Lee) on which the ice making heater is installed (Fig. 3).
However, the references fail to disclose, suggest or teach “wherein, in a state in which the second tray is spaced apart from the first tray for ice separation, the upper end of the front portion and an upper end of the pair of side portions are positioned higher than a lowermost end of the support, and the bottom surface of the rear cut part is positioned lower than the lowermost end of the support”.
Therefore, independent claim 30 is considered allowable.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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