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 .
The claims received 1/23/2026 are entered. Claims 3-5 and 16-17 are cancelled.
Drawings
The drawing amendment received 3/11/2025 is entered. Figure 8 is amended to add reference character 1247 corresponding to a hook.
Specification
The specification amendment received 3/11/2025 is entered. The amendment adds reference character 1247 consistent with the amendment to figure 8.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ochiai (JP 2004-286312; machine translation attached) in view of Jimenez et al (US 10,739,053) or Kim (US 10,976,091).
Regarding claims 1 and 14, Ochiai discloses a refrigerator comprising an ice maker, the ice maker comprising:
a housing proving an ice making space (shown in figure 7 the ice maker is within a refrigerator compartment) and comprising an inlet (15) configured to receive cold air to flow into the ice making space;
a tray (30) disposed in the ice making space and including a plurality of ice making cells (31);
a temperature sensor part (35) disposed at the tray and configured to measure a temperature in the tray,
wherein an upper side of the tray (30) is configured to receive the cold air received at the inlet (15)
wherein the temperature sensor part (35) is disposed below the tray,
wherein the temperature sensor part is disposed below the tray and among the plurality of ice making cells (31),
wherein the temperature sensor part comprises:
a temperature sensor (35; where 35 includes a “thermistor” which is the temperature sensor) configured to measure the temperature in the tray ([0012]-[0015]),
a first thermal insulation material (“The temperature sensor 35 has a thermistor or the like embedded in a case made of a long, cylindrical body with a large heat capacity, such as silicone rubber.” [0014] where the silicone rubber is the first insulation material),
a second thermal insulation material (36) disposed at a lower portion of the temperature sensor, and
a guide (40) in which the temperature sensor, the first thermal insulation material, and the second thermal insulation material are accommodated, and
wherein the first thermal insulation material is configured to thermally insulate the upper surface of the temperature sensor from the tray (figures 5 and 6 show the first insulation material, the silicone rubber, above the thermistor) to thereby reduce an error in the measurement of the temperature caused by the cold air received at the upper side of the tray.
Ochiai lacks that the lower end of the inlet is disposed above the upper side of the tray. Figure 7 illustrates the tray and inlet at about equal in height.
Jimenez discloses a refrigerator having an ice maker where a lower end of a cold air inlet (20) is disposed above an upper side of an ice tray (14).
Kim discloses a refrigerator having an ice maker where a lower end of a cold air inlet (71) is disposed above an upper side of an ice tray (63).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Ochiai with the top disposed air inlet as taught by Jimenez or Kim in order to provide for a compact ice making arrangement that can be disposed on a refrigerator door.
Moreover, it has been held that an “obvious to try” rationale when choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is a support for a conclusion of obviousness which is consistent with the proper "functional approach" to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham, if the following findings can be established: (1) a finding that at the time of the invention, there had been a recognized problem or need in the art, which may include a design need or market pressure to solve a problem; (2) a finding that there had been a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions to the recognized need or problem; (3) a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success; and (4) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness. See MPEP § 2143(I) (E).
In the instant case, and as per (1), it should be noted that supplying cold air to an ice making tray is known. As per (2), based on the above, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that there are only three potential solutions to supplying cold air: the inlet may be above, below, or at a same level as the ice tray. As per (3), one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that placing the inlet above the ice tray would have not yielded unpredictable results, since the water within the ice tray will still freeze and it would not change the principles of operation of the prior art, nor would it render the prior art inoperable for its intended purpose. As per (4), one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the relative positioning of the cold air inlet may also allow for achieving particular packaging and installation constraints.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the lower end of the inlet to be above the upper side of the ice tray, as a matter of trying a finite number of predictable solutions, in order to freeze water into ice, without yielding unpredictable results.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ochiai (JP 2004-286312; machine translation attached) in view of Jimenez et al (US 10,739,053) or Kim (US 10,976,091), and in further view of Belt et al (US 1,817,605).
Regarding claims 15, Ochiai discloses the temperature sensor part (35) is disposed (i) centrally relative to the columns (as shown in figure 5 or 6 the temperature sensor is located between the two columns), (ii) between ice making cells that are adjacent to each other, and (iii) below the tray (shown in figure 5).
Ochiai lacks an odd number of columns greater than or equal to three. It is noted that the tray is arranged as a grid it may be viewed as either 4 rows with 2 columns or 2 rows with 4 columns.
Belt discloses and ice making tray (7; page 2, lines 21-29) having a plurality of ice making cells wherein the plurality of ice making cells are provided in an odd number of columns greater than or equal to three (figure 1 shows and arrangement of 3 columns having 5 rows; or 5 columns of 3 rows).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Ochiai with 3 or more columns as taught by Belt in order to increase ice maker capacity. Further as Ochiai provides the temperature sensor part centrally relative to the columns it follows to provide the temperature sensor part centrally relative to the columns in modification and therefor at a central column.
Claim(s) 6 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ochiai (JP 2004-286312; machine translation attached) in view of Jimenez et al (US 10,739,053) or Kim (US 10,976,091), and in further view of Keller et al (US 2015/0338146)
Regarding claims 6 and 18, Ochiai discloses the guide (40) is disposed below the temperature sensor (thermistor within 35) and is configured to receive a wire connected to the temperature sensor (wire shown in figure 1). While Ochiai discloses the wire of the thermistor being accommodated within the guide, the reference is silent concerning details thereof. Keller discloses a refrigerator having an icemaker including a guide (500) disposed below a temperature sensor (300) and configured to receive a wire (302) connected to the temperature sensor (arrangement shown in figure 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Ochiai with the guide of Keller in order to relieve strain on the wire connections.
Claim(s) 7-10 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ochiai (JP 2004-286312; machine translation attached) in view of Jimenez et al (US 10,739,053) or Kim (US 10,976,091), and in further view of Lee et al (WO2020/071749; citing to US 11,920,846 as translation).
Regarding claim 7, Ochiai as modified discloses the refrigerator of claim 1, wherein the tray comprises a sensor accommodation part (figures 5 and 6 show the temperature sensor accommodation) but is silent concerning relative distances between cells. Lee discloses an ice making tray having an accommodation part (321e; shown in figure 10) for a temperature sensor, and wherein a distance between ice making cells in the censor accommodation part is greater between ice making cells in another portion in the tray (figure 12 shows distance D2 larger than a distance D1 for accommodating the temperature sensor). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Ochiai with smaller distances between ice cells in order to make the ice tray more compact, except for the space to accommodate the temperature sensor as taught by Lee.
Regarding claim 8, Ochiai discloses the sensor accommodation part comprises a hook (32) protruding downward from a lower portion of the tray and coupled to the sensor part.
Regarding claim 9, Ochiai discloses a distance between the sensor accommodation part and a first end of the tray is greater than a distance between the sensor accommodation part and a second end of the tray (shown in figure 1 the sensor is disposed closer to end including element 22), the first end of the tray being closed to the inlet than the second end of the tray (as modified by Jimenez above the cold air inlet is closer to the motive elements of the ice tray at the first end of the tray).
Regarding claim 10, Ochiai discloses the distance between the sensor accommodation part and the first end of the tray is 60-90% of a distance between the first end of the tray and the second end of the tray (as shown in figure 1 the tray includes 4 rows and the accommodation part is at the 3rd row and thus is about 75% of the distance between the first and second ends).
Regarding claim 19, Ochiai as modified discloses the refrigerator of claim 14, wherein the tray comprises a sensor accommodation part (figures 5 and 6 show the temperature sensor accommodation),
wherein the housing comprises an inlet (provided by Jimenez above) configured to receive cold air to flow into the ice making space,
wherein a distance between the sensor accommodation part and a first end of the tray is greater than a distance between the sensor accommodation part and a second end of the tray (shown in figure 1 the sensor is disposed closer to end including element 22), the first end of the tray being closed to the inlet than the second end of the tray (as modified by Jimenez above the cold air inlet is closer to the motive elements of the ice tray at the first end of the tray), and
wherein the distance between the sensor accommodation part and the first end of the tray is 60-90% of a distance between the first end of the tray and the second end of the tray s shown in figure 1 the tray includes 4 rows and the accommodation part is at the 3rd row and thus is about 75% of the distance between the first and second ends).
Ochiai is silent concerning relative distances between cells. Lee discloses an ice making tray having an accommodation part (321e; shown in figure 10) for a temperature sensor, and wherein a distance between ice making cells in the censor accommodation part is greater between ice making cells in another portion in the tray (figure 12 shows distance D2 larger than a distance D1 for accommodating the temperature sensor). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Ochiai with smaller distances between ice cells in order to make the ice tray more compact, except for the space to accommodate the temperature sensor as taught by Lee.
Claim(s) 11-13 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ochiai (JP 2004-286312; machine translation attached) in view of Jimenez et al (US 10,739,053) or Kim (US 10,976,091), and in further view of Oike et al (US 5,182,916).
Regarding claim 11, Ochiai discloses the tray includes a frame to support the end away from the drive unit ([0011]), but is silent concerning a hole and rotation shaft. Oike discloses an ice harvesting arrangement where the first end of the tray includes a shaft (15) coupled to a rotation hole provided at the housing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Ochiai with the shaft and support arrangement as taught by Oike in order to support rotational harvesting of the ice pieces. Moreover as Ochiai discloses but does not show the support of the ice tray at the end opposing the motor one of ordinary skill must select some solution in order to make or use the invention, Oike provides a known prior art solution.
Regarding claim 12, Ochiai discloses the ice maker further comprises an ice removal motor part (22 includes a motor [0011]) mounted in the housing, coupled to a second end of the tray, and configured to rotate the tray with respect to the rotation shaft (15 provided by Oike).
Regarding claim 13, Ochiai and Oike disclose the tray further comprises a tray ice removal stopper (14a of Oike) protruding from the first end of the tray, and wherein the housing further comprises a housing ice removal stopper (9 of Oike) configured to, based on the tray being rotated, contact the tray ice removal stopper.
Regarding claim 20, Ochiai and Oike (modification in view of Oike at claims 11-13 imported here) discloses the tray further comprises a rotation shaft (15 of Oike) disposed at a first end of the tray (end having spring 17 of Oike) and rotatably coupled to a rotation hole provided at the housing,
wherein the ice maker further comprises an ice removal motor part (22) mounted in the housing, coupled to a second end of the tray, and configured to rotate the tray with respect to the rotation shaft (15 of Oike),
wherein the tray further comprises a tray ice removal stopper (14a of Oike) protruding from the first end of the tray, and wherein the housing further comprises a housing ice removal stopper (9 of Oike) configured to, based on the tray being rotated, contact the tray ice removal stopper.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive or rendered moot by the new grounds of rejection.
Ochiai is now relied upon as the primary reference and uses a high thermal capacity material between the thermistor and ice tray. A high thermal capacity material reduces error/noise detected by the temperature sensor
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Dirnberger et al (US 10,309,706), Lee et al (US 5,769,541), Kim (US 9,612,048), Sasaki (JP7-294077), Ito (JP10-332234), Swadais (JP11-83254), Lee (US 8,534,087), and Saito (US 10,753,665)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER R ZERPHEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5965. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-4:00 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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached on 5712707740. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER R ZERPHEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799