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 02/02/2026. The previous 35 USC 112 rejections have also been withdrawn. Claims 1-16 remain pending for consideration.
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 1-3, 7-8, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi (JP2009243826A), in view of Tada et al. (US 4974375, herein after referred to as Tada), and in further view Cho (KR20060126258A).
Regarding claim 1, Kobayashi teaches a refrigerator (disclosed “refrigerator” in paragraph [0028]) comprising: an ice maker (ice making device 1 Fig. 2) including: a tray (ice tray 2 Fig. 2), a water supplier (disclosed “water supply means” in paragraph [0033]) that supplies water (water W Fig. 2) into the tray (paragraph [0033]), a heater (heating means 6 Fig. 2), a cooler (disclosed “structure” in paragraph [0061] which generates cool air) that cools the tray (paragraph [0033]), a condensate collector (connecting means 5 Fig. 2) that collects water vapor (dissolved gas G Fig. 2) from the tray (paragraph [0036]), and a controller (control means 9 Fig. 4) that controls the heater (paragraph [0061]).
Kobayashi teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach “the water supplier supplies the water into the tray through a water pipe extending to the tray, the heater that extends along the water pipe and heats the water flowing in the water pipe and supplied by the water supplier, and the heater to heat the water flowing in the water pipe, such that the water vapor is generated by raising a temperature of the water supplied into the tray above a boiling point by the heat of the heater”.
However, Tada teaches a water supplier (tank 1 and water vapor supply tube 31 Fig. 4 correspond to the water supplier of Kobayashi) supplies water into a tray (Col. 8 lines 6-24 where ice-making container 16 Fig. 4 corresponds to the tray of Kobayashi) through a water pipe (water vapor supply tube 31 Fig. 4) extending to the tray (Fig. 4), a heater (first heating means 31 and second heating means 32 Fig. 4 correspond to the heater of Kobayashi) that extends along the water pipe (Fig. 4 where second heating means 32 extends along water vapor supply tube 31) and heats the water flowing in the water pipe and supplied by the water supplier (Col. 8 lines 6-24), and the heater to heat the water flowing in the water pipe, such that water vapor (Col. 8 lines 6-24) is generated by raising a temperature of the water (corresponds to the temperature of the water flowing through water vapor supply tube 31 Fig. 4 and Col. 8 lines 6-24) supplied into the tray above a boiling point (referring to Col. 8 lines 6-24, a person skilled in the art would recognize that the water is heated above its boiling point since the water is vaporized) by the heat of the heater (Col. 8 lines 6-24) to generate ice particles of still smaller particles diameters (Col. 8 lines 1-5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of Kobayashi to include “the water supplier supplies the water into the tray through a water pipe extending to the tray, the heater that extends along the water pipe and heats the water flowing in the water pipe and supplied by the water supplier, and the heater to heat the water flowing in the water pipe, such that the water vapor is generated by raising a temperature of the water supplied into the tray above a boiling point by the heat of the heater” in view of the teachings of Tada to generate ice particles of still smaller particles diameters.
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “the condensate collector separates the collected water vapor into condensate and air, and transfers the separated condensate to the water supplier to be supplied by the water supplier into the tray, the controller controls the water supplier to supply water into the tray through the water pipe, and controls the cooler to turn water, of which a dissolved air concentration is reduced due to the generation of the water vapor, in the tray into ice”.
However, Cho teaches a condensate collector (condensation tank 16 Fig. 1 corresponds to the condensate collector of Kobayashi) separates collected water vapor (the disclosed “steam” in paragraph [6] of page 5 which flows through steam line b corresponds to the water vapor of Kobayashi) into condensate (disclosed “condensed water” in paragraph [6] page 5) and air (disclosed “gas other than water vapor” in paragraph [7] page 7), and transfers the separated condensate to a water supplier (paragraph [1] page 7 where storage tank 60 and second pump 32 Fig. 1 correspond to the water supplier of Kobayashi) to be supplied by the water supplier into a tray (paragraph [1] of page 7 where a person skilled in the art would recognize that evaporator 23 Fig. 1 would include a tray which would correspond to the tray of Kobayashi to hold the supplied water), a controller (the disclosed “controller” in paragraph [4] page 10 corresponds to the controller of Kobayashi) controls the water supplier to supply water into the tray through the water pipe (paragraph [4] page 10 and Fig. 1 where the pipe connecting storage tank 60 to evaporator 23 corresponds to the water pipe of Tada) and controls a cooler (evaporator 23 Fig. 1 corresponds to the cooler of Kobayashi) to turn water, of which a dissolved air concentration (corresponds to the dissolved air concentration of the water contained in storage tank 60 Fig. 1) is reduced due to the generation of the water vapor (the water collected in storage tank 60 would have a reduced dissolved air concentration since the air was separated from the water in condensation tank 16 Fig. 1 and paragraphs [6] and [7] of pages 5 and 7 respectively), in the tray into ice (paragraph [1] of page 6) to generate ice with a better quality (first paragraph of the “Tech-Problem” section in page 2).
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 “the condensate collector separates the collected water vapor into condensate and air, and transfers the separated condensate to the water supplier to be supplied by the water supplier into the tray, the controller controls the water supplier to supply water into the tray through the water pipe, and controls the cooler to turn water, of which a dissolved air concentration is reduced due to the generation of the water vapor, in the tray into ice” in view of the teachings of Cho to generate ice with a better quality.
Regarding claim 2, the combined teachings teach further comprising: a pump (decompression pump Fig. 2 of Kobayashi) that performs a pumping operation (understood to be the pumping operation disclosed in paragraph [0034] of Kobayashi) to adjust an internal pressure of the tray (disclosed “pressure in the ice tray 2” in paragraph [0034] of Kobayashi) upon water being supplied to the tray (paragraphs [0033] to [0034] of Kobayashi), wherein the controller controls the water supplier to supply water into the tray (paragraph [4] page 10 of Cho where evaporator 23 corresponds to the tray of Kobayashi) while controlling the pump (paragraph [0045] of Kobayashi) to lower the internal pressure of the tray below an external pressure of the refrigerator (disclosed “atmospheric pressure” in paragraph [0034] of Kobayashi).
Regarding claim 3, the combined teachings teach wherein the condensate collector transfers air separated from the collected water vapor to the pump (paragraph [0030] of Kobayashi).
Regarding claim 7, the combined teachings teach wherein the heater extends along the water pipe so as to be adjacent to the water pipe (Fig. 4 of Tada).
Regarding claim 8, the combined teachings teach wherein the heater is adjacent to the tray so as to be positioned to heat the tray (Fig. 2 of Kobayashi).
Regarding claim 16, the combined teachings teach wherein the condensate collector includes a heat sink (heat exchanger 43 Fig. 1 of Cho) to separate the collected water vapor into condensate and air (paragraph [7] page 7 and paragraph [1] page 8 of Cho).
Claims 4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi, Tada, and Cho as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ryu (KR19990043134A).
Regarding claim 4, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein the controller controls the cooler to cool the tray, based on an internal pressure of the tray exceeding a threshold after supplying water into the tray”.
However, Ryu teaches wherein the controller (control unit 51 Fig. 4 corresponds to the controller of Kobayashi) controls the cooler (refrigeration system 54 Fig. 4 corresponds to the cooler of Kobayashi) to cool the tray (Fig. 4 and page 4 where ice making tray 33 corresponds to the tray of Kobayashi), based on an internal pressure of the tray (disclosed “output signal corresponding to a force applied per unit area” in paragraph [1] of page 4) exceeding a threshold (disclosed “predetermined reference data amount” in paragraph [2] of page 4) after supplying water into the tray (page 4).
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 controller controls the cooler to cool the tray, based on an internal pressure of the tray exceeding a threshold after supplying water into the tray” in view of the teachings of Ryu to supply enough water for ice making.
Regarding claim 9, the combined teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein the water supplier includes a water supply valve controlled by the controller to open and close the water supplier”.
However, Ryu teaches wherein the water supplier (water supply device 41 Fig. 6 corresponds to the water supplier of Kobayashi) includes a water supply valve (water supply valve 47 Fig. 6) controlled by the controller (paragraph [2] of page 4 where control unit 51 Fig. 4 corresponds to the controller of Kobayashi) to open and close the water supplier (paragraph [2] page 2).
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 water supplier includes a water supply valve controlled by the controller to open and close the water supplier” in view of the teachings of Ryu to control the amount of water being supplied to the ice tray.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi, Tada, and Cho as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Marutani et al. (CN102192625B, herein after referred to as Marutani).
Regarding claim 5, the combined teachings teach further comprising: a condensate confluent pipe (condensate line c Fig. 1 of Cho) connecting the condensate collector and the water supplier (Fig. 1 of Cho).
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “a condensate confluent pipe valve opens and closes the condensate confluent pipe, wherein the controller controls the condensate confluent pipe valve to close the condensate confluent pipe upon water being supplied to the tray through the water supplier, and to open the condensate confluent pipe upon condensate being supplied from the condensate collector to the water supplier”.
However, Marutani teaches a condensate confluent pipe valve (water inlet valve 160 Fig. 19) opens and closes the condensate confluent pipe (paragraph [193] and Fig. 19 where water supply pipe portion 125 corresponds to the condensate confluent pipe of Cho), wherein the controller (control unit 150 Fig. 16 corresponds to the controller of Kobayashi) controls the condensate confluent pipe valve to close the condensate confluent pipe (paragraph [195]) upon water being supplied to the tray through the water supplier (Fig. 19 where the portion of the pipe below merging portion 144 corresponds to the water supplier of Kobayashi), and to open the condensate confluent pipe (paragraph [194]) upon condensate (the water stored in water storage unit 137 Fig. 19 corresponds to the condensate of Cho) being supplied from the condensate collector (water storage unit 137 Fig. 19 corresponds to the condensate collector of Kobayashi) to the water supplier (paragraph [194]).
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 condensate confluent pipe valve opens and closes the condensate confluent pipe, wherein the controller controls the condensate confluent pipe valve to close the condensate confluent pipe upon water being supplied to the tray through the water supplier, and to open the condensate confluent pipe upon condensate being supplied from the condensate collector to the water supplier” in view of the teachings of Marutani to provide the option of bypassing the condenser collector.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi, Tada, and Cho as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim (US20180195793A1).
Regarding claim 6, the combined teachings teach further comprising: a condensate confluent pipe (condensate line c Fig. 1 of Cho) connecting the condensate collector and the water supplier (Fig. 1 of Cho).
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “a confluent valve that selectively opens and closes the condensate confluent pipe and the water supplier, wherein the controller controls the confluent valve to close the condensate confluent pipe and to open the water supplier to supply water to the tray through the water supplier and prevent water from flowing from the water supplier to the condensate confluent pipe, and to open the condensate confluent pipe and close the water supplier to supply condensate from the condensate collector to the water supplier to be collected”.
However, Kim teaches a confluent valve (main body valve 317 Fig. 3) that selectively opens and closes a condensate confluent pipe (paragraph [0027] where cold water passage 341 Fig. 3 corresponds to the condensate confluent pipe of Cho) and a water supplier (paragraph [0088] and Fig. 3 where main body purified-water passage 331 and common passage 350 correspond to the water supplier of Kobayashi), wherein a controller (controller 50 Fig. 5 corresponds to the controller of Kobayashi) controls the confluent valve to close the condensate confluent pipe and to open the water supplier (paragraphs [0093] and [0094]) to supply water to a tray (ice maker 251 Fig. 3 corresponds to the tray of Kobayashi) through the water supplier (paragraph [0032]) and prevent water from flowing from the water supplier to the condensate confluent pipe (paragraph [0027] where it is disclosed that main body valve 317 has two inlets and one outlet which would prevent water from flowing from water passage 331 to cold water passage 341), and to open the condensate confluent pipe and close the water supplier to supply condensate (the water stored in water tank 60 Fig. 3 corresponds to the condensate of Kobayashi) from the condensate collector to the water supplier to be collected (paragraph [0089]).
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 confluent valve that selectively opens and closes the condensate confluent pipe and the water supplier, wherein the controller controls the confluent valve to close the condensate confluent pipe and to open the water supplier to supply water to the tray through the water supplier and prevent water from flowing from the water supplier to the condensate confluent pipe, and to open the condensate confluent pipe and close the water supplier to supply condensate from the condensate collector to the water supplier to be collected” in view of the teachings of Kim to lessen the number of parts used.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi, Tada, and Cho as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee (KR20110056025A).
Regarding claim 10, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein the cooler includes a refrigerant pipe adjacent to the tray”.
However, Lee teaches wherein the cooler (evaporator 6 Fig. 6 corresponds to the cooler of Kobayashi) includes a refrigerant pipe (cooling pipe 20 Fig. 7) adjacent to the tray (Fig. 3 where ice tray 100 corresponds to the ice tray of Kobayashi).
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 cooler includes a refrigerant pipe adjacent to the tray” in view of the teachings of Lee to provide cooling for the ice tray by heat conduction.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi, Tada, Cho, and Lee as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Sato (JPH04131674A).
Regarding claim 11, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein the refrigerant pipe is adjacent to the condensate collector to cool water vapor collected in the condensate collector”.
However, Sato teaches wherein the refrigerant pipe (evaporator 78 Fig. 10 corresponds to the refrigerant pipe of Lee) is adjacent to the condensate collector (Fig. 10 where cold trap 77 corresponds to the condensate collector of Kobayashi) to cool water vapor collected in the condensate collector (paragraph [1] page 2) to reduce the burden on the vacuum pump (paragraph [1] page 2).
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 refrigerant pipe is adjacent to the condensate collector to cool water vapor collected in the condensate collector” in view of the teachings of Sato to reduce the burden on the vacuum pump.
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toshiyuki, in view of Tada, in view of Kobayashi, and in further view of Cho.
Regarding claim 12, Toshiyuki teaches a method (understood to be the method describes in paragraphs [0030] to [0033]) of controlling a refrigerator (refrigerator 1 Fig. 3), comprising: heating water (paragraph [0030]) by a heater (heater 11 Fig. 5) and supplying the heated water to a tray (ice tray 12 Fig. 3 and paragraph [0030]) of an ice maker (ice making unit 6 Fig. 3) by a water supplier (water supply pipe 8 Fig. 5).
Toshiyuki teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach “the method comprising: heating the water by the heater such that water vapor is generated by raising a temperature of the water supplied into the tray above a boiling point by the heat of the heater”.
However, Tada teaches a method (the method disclosed in Col. 8 lines 2-24 corresponds to the method of Toshiyuki) comprising: heating water by a heater (first heating means 30 and second heating means 32 Fig. 4 and Col. 8 lines 2-24 correspond to the heater of Toshiyuki) such that water vapor (Col. 8 lines 2-24) is generated by raising a temperature of the water (corresponds to the temperature of the water flowing through water vapor supply tube 31 Fig. 4) supplied into a tray (ice making container 16 Fig. 4 corresponds to the tray of Toshiyuki) above a boiling point (referring to Col. 8 lines 6-24, a person skilled in the art would recognize that the water is heated above its boiling point since the water is vaporized) by the heat of the heater (Col. 8 lines 2-24) to generate ice particles of still smaller particles diameters (Col. 8 lines 1-5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the method of the Toshiyuki to include “the method comprising: heating the water by the heater such that water vapor is generated by raising a temperature of the water supplied into the tray above a boiling point by the heat of the heater” in view of the teachings of Tada to generate ice particles of still smaller particles diameters.
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “the method comprising: collecting the water vapor from the tray by a condensate collector”.
However, Kobayashi teaches a method (the ice making method disclosed in paragraph [0037] corresponds to the method of Toshiyuki) comprising: collecting water vapor (the dissolved gas G Fig. 2 corresponds to the water vapor of Tada) from a tray (ice tray 2 Fig. 2 corresponds to the tray of Toshiyuki) by a condensate collector (connecting means 5 Fig. 2 and paragraph [0036]) to generate ice with a very high transparency.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the method of the combined teachings to include “the method comprising: collecting the water vapor from the tray by a condensate collector” in view of the teachings of Kobayashi to generate ice with a very high transparency.
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “the method comprising: cooling the tray by a cooler so as to turn the water, of which a dissolved air concentration is reduced due to the generation of the water vapor, in the tray into ice; separating the collected water vapor into condensate and air, and transferring the separated condensate to the water supplier to be supplied by the water supplier into the tray”.
However, Cho teaches a method (the method described in paragraph [6] corresponds to the method of Toshiyuki) comprising: cooling a tray (paragraph [1] of page 6 where a person skilled in the art would recognize that evaporator 23 Fig. 1 would include a tray which would correspond to the tray of Toshiyuki to hold the supplied water) by a cooler (evaporator 23 Fig. 1) so as to turn water, of which a dissolved air concentration (corresponds to the dissolved air concentration of the water contained in storage tank 60 Fig. 1) is reduced (the water collected in storage tank 60 would have a reduced dissolved air concentration since the air was separated from the water in condensation tank 16 Fig. 1 and paragraphs [6] and [7] of pages 5 and 7 respectively) due to the generation of water vapor (the disclosed “steam” in paragraph [6] of page 5 which flows through steam line b corresponds to the water vapor of Tada), in the tray into ice (paragraph [1] of page 6); separating the collected water vapor into condensate (disclosed “condensed water” in paragraph [6] page 5) and air (disclosed “gas other than water vapor” in paragraph [7] page 7), and transferring the separated condensate to a water supplier (paragraph [1] page 7 where storage tank 60 and second pump 32 Fig. 1 correspond to the water supplier of Toshiyuki) to be supplied by the water supplier into the tray (paragraph [1] page 7) to generate ice with a better quality (first paragraph of the “Tech-Problem” section in page 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the method of the combined teachings to include “the method comprising: cooling the tray by a cooler so as to turn the water, of which a dissolved air concentration is reduced due to the generation of the water vapor, in the tray into ice; separating the collected water vapor into condensate and air, and transferring the separated condensate to the water supplier to be supplied by the water supplier into the tray” in view of the teachings of Cho to generate ice with a better quality.
Regarding claim 13, the combined teachings teach wherein the supplying of the heated water to the tray (paragraph [0030] of Toshiyuki) includes lowering (paragraph [0034] of Kobayashi) an internal pressure of the tray (disclosed “pressure in the ice tray 2” in paragraph [0034] of Kobayashi) below an external pressure of the refrigerator (disclosed “atmospheric pressure” in paragraph [0034] of Kobayashi).
Regarding claim 14, the combined teachings teach wherein the transferring of the separated condensate to the water supplier (paragraph [1] page 7 of Toshiyuki) includes transferring air separated from the collected water vapor (paragraph [0030] of Kobayashi) to a pump (decompression pump Fig. 2 of Kobayashi) configured to adjust the internal pressure of the tray (paragraph [0034] of Kobayashi).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toshiyuki, Tada, Kobayashi, and Cho as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Ryu.
Regarding claim 15, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein the cooling of the tray includes cooling the tray, based on an internal pressure of the tray exceeding a threshold after supplying water into the tray”.
However, Ryu teaches wherein the cooling of the tray (Fig. 4 and page 4 where ice making tray 33 corresponds to the tray of Toshiyuki) includes cooling the tray, based on an internal pressure of the tray (disclosed “output signal corresponding to a force applied per unit area” in paragraph [1] of page 4) exceeding a threshold (disclosed “predetermined reference data amount” in paragraph [2] of page 4) after supplying water into the tray (page 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the method of the combined teachings to include “wherein the cooling of the tray includes cooling the tray, based on an internal pressure of the tray exceeding a threshold after supplying water into the tray” in view of the teachings of Ryu to supply enough water for ice making.
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 02/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on pages 14-15 that Cho could not be combined with Kobayashi, Applicant is reminded that a determination of obviousness based on teachings from multiple references does not require an actual, physical substitution of elements. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference, rather the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.
In the case at hand, and for clarity purposes, Kobayashi teaches an ice maker (ice making device 1 Fig. 2) including: a tray (ice tray 2 Fig. 2), a water supplier (disclosed “water supply means” in paragraph [0033]), a heater (heating means 6 Fig. 2), a condensate collector (connecting means 5 Fig. 2) that collects water vapor (dissolved gas G Fig. 2) from the tray (paragraph [0036]), and a controller (control means 9 Fig. 4) that controls the heater (paragraph [0061]) to generate the water vapor.
The teachings of Cho would have suggested a person skilled in the art to modify the apparatus of Kobayashi to include a condensate collector (condensation tank 16 Fig. 1) that separates collected water vapor (the disclosed “steam” in paragraph [6] of page 5 which flows through steam line b) into condensate (disclosed “condensed water” in paragraph [6] page 5) and air (disclosed “gas other than water vapor” in paragraph [7] page 7), and transfers the separated condensate to a water supplier (paragraph [1] page 7 where storage tank 60 and second pump 32 Fig. 1 correspond to the water supplier) to be supplied by the water supplier into a tray (paragraph [1] of page 7 where a person skilled in the art would recognize that evaporator 23 Fig. 1 would include a tray to hold the supplied water), a controller (disclosed “controller” in paragraph [4] page 10) controls the water supplier (paragraph [4] page 10) to supply water into the tray through the water pipe (paragraph [4] page 10 and Fig. 1 where the pipe connecting storage tank 60 to evaporator 23 corresponds to the water pipe) and controls a cooler (evaporator 23 Fig. 1) to turn water, of which a dissolved air concentration (corresponds to the dissolved air concentration of the water contained in storage tank 60 Fig. 1) is reduced due to the generation of the water vapor (the water collected in storage tank 60 would have a reduced dissolved air concentration since the air was separated from the water in condensation tank 16 Fig. 1 and paragraphs [6] and [7] of pages 5 and 7 respectively), in the tray into ice (paragraph [1] of page 6) to generate ice with a better quality (first paragraph of the “Tech-Problem” section in page 2).
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive 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