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 11/23/2025. The previous claim interpretations and previous objections to the specification and claims have been withdrawn. Furthermore, the previous 35 USC 112 rejections have also been withdrawn. Claims 1, 4-9, and 14-15 remain pending for consideration.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
“tray driving motor” in claim 1
“fluctuation-part driving motor” in claim 1
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 1, 4-9, and 14-15 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “formed ice” in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For examination purposes, the phrase “the guide plate being configured to guide formed ice to the ice storage tank” will be interpreted as -- the guide plate being configured to guide the formed ice to the ice storage tank --
Claims 2, 4-9, and 14-15 are also rejected due to dependency.
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 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20120186292 A1), in view of Kwon (KR100995151B1), in view of Lee et al. (KR102181350B1, herein after referred to as Lee’50), and in further view of Maroli (EP1736722A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches a home ice maker (ice maker 100 Fig. 1) comprising: a casing (Fig. 1); a compressor (compressor 311 Fig. 6) and a condenser (condenser 312 Fig. 6) installed inside the casing (a person skilled in the art would recognize that the ice making unit 300 illustrated in Fig. 6 would be accommodated in the casing illustrated in Fig. 1) and through which refrigerant (paragraph [0065]) circulates; an ice making module (water tray member 200 Fig. 1) having an ice making tray (ice-making water tray 210 Fig. 7) in which ice-making water (disclosed “raw water” in paragraph [0053]) is received, the ice making module being configured to freeze the ice-making water by the refrigerant supplied from the condenser (paragraph [0065]); an ice storage tank (ice storage unit 140 Fig. 1) which stores ice formed in the ice making module (paragraph [0055]); a guide plate (guide grill 230 Fig. 7) being connected to the ice making tray (Fig. 7), the guide plate being configured to guide the formed ice to the ice storage tank during rotation of the ice making tray (Fig. 7); and a fluctuation module (movement generation unit 160 Fig. 2) which fluctuates the ice-making water (paragraph [0085]), wherein the ice making module includes an evaporation tube (evaporator 120 Fig. 6) connected to the condenser (Fig. 6) and arranged to have a U shape (Figs. 1 and 7) inside the ice making tray; cooling protrusions (immersion pipes 121 Fig. 7) installed by protruding toward a bottom of the ice making tray (Fig. 7) from the evaporation tube; and a tray driving motor (disclosed “motor” in paragraph [0109]) which rotates the ice making tray (paragraph [0109]), and the fluctuation module includes a fluctuation part (wave generation plate 161 Fig. 4) which is inserted into the ice making tray (Fig. 5) and rotates to fluctuate the ice-making water toward the cooling protrusions of the ice making module (Fig. 5 and paragraph [0086]), wherein the fluctuation part includes: a fluctuation shaft (shaft member 162 Fig. 4); a fluctuation head (fixing member 163 Fig. 4) installed on an end of one side of the fluctuation shaft (Fig. 4).
Kim teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach “wherein the fluctuation part is inserted and arranged in a center of the evaporation tube arranged in the U shape, wherein the fluctuation part includes: a plurality of passage holes formed in the fluctuation part to allow the ice-making water to pass therethrough”.
However, Kwon teaches wherein a fluctuation part (separating plate 500 Fig. 7 corresponds to the fluctuation part of Kim) is inserted and arranged in a center of an evaporation tube (Fig. 8 where refrigerant pipe 210 corresponds to the evaporation tube of Kim) arranged in a U shape (Fig. 8 and paragraph [0034]), wherein the fluctuation part includes: a plurality of passage holes (circulation holes 520 Fig. 7) formed in the fluctuation part (Fig. 7) to allow ice-making water to pass therethrough (paragraph [0055]) to facilitate the production of transparent ice (paragraph [0055]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of Kim to include “wherein the fluctuation part is inserted and arranged in a center of the evaporation tube arranged in the U shape, wherein the fluctuation part includes: a plurality of passage holes formed in the fluctuation part to allow the ice-making water to pass therethrough” in view of the teachings of Kwon to facilitate the production of transparent ice.
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein the fluctuation part includes: the fluctuation shaft that is connected to a rotation shaft of the ice making tray and is coaxial with the rotation shaft; and wherein the fluctuation module further includes: a fluctuation-part driving motor which rotates the fluctuation shaft”.
However, Lee’50 teaches wherein a fluctuation part (pivot member C Fig. 6 corresponds to the fluctuation part of Kim) includes: a fluctuation shaft (rotation shaft A Fig. 6 corresponds to the fluctuation shaft of Kim) that is connected to a rotation shaft of an ice making tray (Fig. 6 where tray member T corresponds to the ice making tray of Kim) and is coaxial with the rotation shaft (Fig. 6); and wherein the fluctuation module further includes: a fluctuation-part driving motor (disclosed “electric motor” in paragraph [0057]) which rotates the fluctuation shaft (paragraph [0057]).
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 fluctuation part includes: the fluctuation shaft that is connected to a rotation shaft of the ice making tray and is coaxial with the rotation shaft; and wherein the fluctuation module further includes: a fluctuation-part driving motor which rotates the fluctuation shaft” in view of the teachings of Lee’50 to reduce the number of parts of the home ice maker.
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “a limit switch installed to be adjacent to the fluctuation head, the limit switch being configured to detect contact of the fluctuation head with the limit switch so as to limit rotation of the fluctuation head”.
However, Maroli teaches a limit switch (microswitch 52 Fig. 1) installed to be adjacent to a fluctuation head (tab 44 Fig. 1 corresponds to the fluctuation head of Kim), the limit switch being configured to detect contact of the fluctuation head with the limit switch so as to limit rotation of the fluctuation head (paragraph [0047]) to prevent damaging the fluctuation part.
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 limit switch installed to be adjacent to the fluctuation head, the limit switch being configured to detect contact of the fluctuation head with the limit switch so as to limit rotation of the fluctuation head” in view of the teachings of Maroli to prevent damaging the fluctuation part.
Regarding claim 14, the combined teachings teach wherein the fluctuation part is interposed between the cooling protrusions to face side portions of the cooling protrusions (Fig. 8 of Kwon).
Regarding claim 15, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein the rotation shaft of the ice-making tray and the fluctuation shaft of the fluctuation part are arranged at a center portion of the ice-making tray”.
However, Applicant has not disclosed that having “wherein the rotation shaft of the ice-making tray and the fluctuation shaft of the fluctuation part are arranged at a center portion of the ice-making tray” does anything more than produce the predictable result of rotating both the ice-making tray and the fluctuation part on the same rotational axis. Since it has been held that mere rearrangement of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, see MPEP 2144.04 VI. C, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, to modify the apparatus of Lee’50 and meet the claimed limitations in order to provide the predictable results of rotating both the ice-making tray and the fluctuation part on the same rotational axis.
Claims 4-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, Kwon, Lee’50, and Maroli as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Park et al. (US 20180017313 A1, herein after referred to as Park).
Regarding claim 4, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “further comprising: an ice-making water supply tube which injects ice-making water supplied from an ice-making water supply source into the ice making tray, and a first ice-making water temperature sensor which is installed on one side of the ice-making water supply tube and measures a temperature of ice-making water supplied thereto”.
However, Park teaches further comprising: an ice-making water supply tube (water tube 14 Fig. 1) which injects ice-making water (disclosed “water” in paragraph [0045]) supplied from an ice-making water supply source (referring to paragraph [0045], a person skilled in the art would recognize that water is being supplied by an outside source) into an ice making tray (ice-making tray 112 Fig. 3 corresponds to the ice making tray of Kim), and a first ice-making water temperature sensor (temperature sensor 18 Fig. 1) which is installed on one side of the ice-making water supply tube (Fig. 1) and measures a temperature (paragraph [0052]) of ice-making water supplied thereto to provide ice making water at a predetermined temperature (paragraph [0054]).
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 “further comprising: an ice-making water supply tube which injects ice-making water supplied from an ice-making water supply source into the ice making tray, and a first ice-making water temperature sensor which is installed on one side of the ice-making water supply tube and measures a temperature of ice-making water supplied thereto” in view of the teachings of Park to provide ice making water at a predetermined temperature.
Regarding claim 5, the combined teachings teach further comprising: a second ice-making water temperature sensor (temperature sensor S Fig. 5 of Kim) which detects a temperature of ice-making water (paragraph [0083] of Kim) received inside the ice making tray.
Regarding claim 7, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach “further comprising: an ice-making water supply tube which injects ice-making water supplied from an ice-making water supply source into the ice making tray, wherein one side of the ice-making water supply tube is extended and arranged by being spirally wound on an outer peripheral surface of the compressor”.
However, Park teaches further comprising: an ice-making water supply tube (water tube 14 Fig. 1) which injects ice-making water (disclosed “water” in paragraph [0045]) supplied from an ice-making water supply source (referring to paragraph [0045], a person skilled in the art would recognize that water is being supplied by an outside source) into an ice making tray (ice-making tray 112 Fig. 3 corresponds to the ice making tray of Kim), wherein one side of the ice-making water supply tube (water recovery tube 142 Fig. 1) is extended and arranged by being spirally wound on an outer peripheral surface of a compressor (Fig. 1 where compressor 2 corresponds to the compressor of Kim) to provide ice-making water at a predetermined temperature range.
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 “further comprising: an ice-making water supply tube which injects ice-making water supplied from an ice-making water supply source into the ice making tray, wherein one side of the ice-making water supply tube is extended and arranged by being spirally wound on an outer peripheral surface of the compressor” in view of the teachings of Park to provide ice-making water at a predetermined temperature range.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, Kwon, Lee’50, Maroli, and Park as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Yamamoto (JPH05296624A).
Regarding claim 6, the combined teachings teach wherein the ice making module (ice maker 11 Fig. 1 of Park corresponds to the ice making module of Kim) controls a period of ice making time (corresponds to amount of time it takes to make ice based on the “Mpemba effect” disclosed in paragraphs [0045] and [0057] of Park) according to a value (disclosed “temperature” detected by temperature sensor 18 in paragraph [0073] of Park) measured by the first ice-making water temperature sensor (paragraph [0073] of Park).
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein the fluctuation module controls a rotation speed of the fluctuation part according to a value measured by the second ice-making water temperature sensor”.
However, Yamamoto teaches wherein a fluctuation module (drive unit 11 Fig. 2 corresponds to the fluctuation module of Kim) controls a rotation speed of a fluctuation part (paragraph [0189] where motor 34 Fig. 3 corresponds to the fluctuation part of Kim) according to a value (paragraph [0189]) measured by a second ice-making water temperature sensor (temperature sensor 51 disclosed in paragraph [0056] corresponds to the second ice-making water temperature sensor of Kim) to adjust the speed of the fluctuation part in accordance with the rate of gas being discharged during the ice making process (paragraph [0189]).
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 fluctuation module controls a rotation speed of the fluctuation part according to a value measured by the second ice-making water temperature sensor” in view of the teachings of Yamamoto to adjust the speed of the fluctuation part in accordance with the rate of gas being discharged during the ice making process.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, Kwon, Lee’50, and Maroli as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (KR20180041520A, herein after referred to as Lee).
Regarding claim 8, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “further comprising: a support bracket being connected to the evaporation tube at a first side thereof and connected to an inner casing of the ice maker at a second side thereof so as to support the evaporation tube, wherein the support bracket is connected to an upper part of a center of the evaporation tube in a height direction thereof”.
However, Lee teaches further comprising: a support bracket (support bracket unit 300 Fig. 1) being connected to an evaporation tube (Fig. 1 where evaporation pipe 200 corresponds to the evaporation tube of Kim) at a first side thereof (Fig. 2) and connected to an inner casing of an ice maker (the interior of ice maker body BD Fig. 2) at a second side thereof (Fig. 2) so as to support the evaporation tube (Fig. 2), wherein the support bracket is connected to an upper part of a center of the evaporation tube (Fig. 1 and paragraph [0061]) in a height direction thereof (Fig. 1) to couple the evaporation tube to the ice making module.
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 “further comprising: a support bracket being connected to the evaporation tube at a first side thereof and connected to an inner casing of the ice maker at a second side thereof so as to support the evaporation tube, wherein the support bracket is connected to an upper part of a center of the evaporation tube in a height direction thereof” in view of the teachings of Lee to couple the evaporation tube to the ice making module.
Regarding claim 9, the combined teachings teach wherein the support bracket is connected to a curved arc part (Figs. 1-2 of Lee) of the evaporation tube having the U shape (Figs. 1-2 of Lee).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 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.
Applicant's arguments filed on 11/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on pages 12-14, that the combination of Kim and Kwon fails to teach or suggest "the fluctuation module include a fluctuation part which is inserted into the ice making tray and rotates to fluctuate the ice-making water toward the cooling protrusions of the ice making module, wherein the fluctuation part is inserted and arranged in a center of the evaporation tube arranged in the U shape" as recited in amended claim 1, Examiner disagrees.
Applicant is reminded that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
For clarity purposes, in the case at hand, Kim teaches a fluctuation module (movement generation unit 160 Fig. 2) that includes a fluctuation part (wave generation plate 161 Fig. 4) which is inserted into an ice making tray (ice-making water tray 210 Fig. 7) and rotates to fluctuate an ice-making water (disclosed “raw water” in paragraph [0053]) toward cooling protrusions (immersion pipes 121 Fig. 7) of an ice making module (water tray member 200 Figs. 1 and 5 with paragraph [0086]), and an evaporation tube (evaporator 120 Fig. 6) arranged in a U shape (Figs. 1 and 7).
The apparatus of Kim teaches all the structures of the present invention but fails to teach “the fluctuation part is inserted and arranged in a center of the evaporation tube arranged in the U shape, wherein the fluctuation part includes: a plurality of passage holes formed in the fluctuation part to allow the ice-making water to pass therethrough”. However, to facilitate the production of transparent ice as disclosed in paragraph [0055] of Kwon, the teachings of Kwon would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Kim to include a fluctuation part (separating plate 500 Fig. 7) that is inserted and arranged in a center of an evaporation tube (Fig. 8 where refrigerant pipe 210 corresponds to the evaporation tube) arranged in a U shape (Fig. 8 and paragraph [0034]), wherein the fluctuation part includes: a plurality of passage holes (circulation holes 520 Fig. 7) formed in the fluctuation part (Fig. 7) to allow ice-making water to pass therethrough (paragraph [0055]).
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejections are maintained.
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