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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1 and 3-21 are pending. Claim 21 is new. Claim 2 has been canceled. Claims 1, 5-6, 8-9, and 13-17. By virtue of dependency, claims 3-4, 7, 10-12, and 18-20 are also amended in scope.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 3-21 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.
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, 7, 9-10, 15, 17-18, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi et al. (JPH 1030864 A, machine translation), hereafter referred to as “Yamaguchi,” in view of Beck et al. (3,217,508), here after referred to as “Beck.”
Regarding Claim 1: Yamaguchi teaches a refrigeration appliance (freezing room in a refrigerator, abstract) comprising: a cabinet defining a freezer space (abstract); an automatic ice-making system (abstract) positioned in the cabinet (see Figures 9 and 15) a twistable ice cube tray (1) configured to receive water at a first end of the twistable ice cube tray (1) and comprising: the twistable ice cube tray (1) comprising: a plurality of ice cavities (4) arranged along the twistable ice cube tray (1) from the first end to an opposite second end for freezing the water into a plurality of ice cubes each (functional limitation); and a plurality of slanted bridges (2), each slanted bridge of the plurality of slanted bridges being positioned between adjacent ice cavities of the plurality of ice cavities in a first end-to-second end direction and sloping downward from the first end toward the second end to transfer the water from a first set of ice cavities of the plurality of ice cavities at the first end to a second set of ice cavities of the plurality of ice cavities at the second end of the twistable ice cube tray (see Figure1 (b) and 2 (b)).
Yamaguchi modified supra fails to teach a water-filling system; a twistable ice cube tray configured to receive water from the water-filling system at a first end of the twistable ice cube tray, the plurality of ice cavities arranged for freezing the water into a plurality of ice cubes each having a mass of up to 1.5 grams.
Beck teaches a water-filling system (146, 147, 148, 149, 151); a twistable ice cube tray (25) configured to receive water from the water-filling system (146, 147, 148, 149, 151) at a first end of the twistable ice cube tray (25).
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 a water-filling system; a twistable ice cube tray configured to receive water from the water-filling system at a first end of the twistable ice cube tray to the structure of Yamaguchi as taught by Beck in order to advantageously provide automatic filling of the tray when needed (see Beck, Column 7, lines 25-51).
Yamaguchi modified supra fails to teach the plurality of ice cavities arranged for freezing the water into a plurality of ice cubes each having a mass of up to 1.5 grams.
However, the change in measurements is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result and optimization through routine experimentation. In this case, the recognized result is that a change in the measurements of water would result in different procedural steps for ice making (see Yamaguchi, paragraphs [0015]-[0029] of the machine translation). Therefore, since the general conditions and structures of the claim were disclosed in the prior art by Yamaguchi modified supra, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the ice making structure as disclosed by Yamaguchi modified supra and having the efficiency altered with changes in ratios and measurement ranges. Furthermore, the ice cube measurement amount is recognized by the Examiner to be a general measurement, and a measurement that would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art would before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2144.04 IV A and 2144.05 I, II A and B.
Regarding Claim 7: Yamaguchi wherein each of the plurality of ice cavities (4) are configured to produce an ice cube having at least one of an accordion shape, a button shape, a conical shape, a round dimple shape, a donut shape, a square shape (see Figure 6 (b)), a pyramid shape, or a bar shape.
Regarding Claim 9: Yamaguchi teaches a twistable ice cube tray (1, paragraph [0006]) for a refrigeration appliance (abstract) comprising: a plurality of ice cavities (4) arranged along the twistable ice cube tray (1) from a first, water filling end (water added to 1), to an opposite second end for freezing water into a plurality of ice cubes (see Figure 11); and a first plurality of slanted bridges (2), each slanted bridge of the first plurality of slanted bridges (see Figures 1 (b) and 2 (b)) being positioned between adjacent ice cavities of the plurality of ice cavities (see Figure 1 (b)), in a first end-to-second end direction and sloping downward from the first end toward the second end (see Figures 1 (b) and 2 (b)).
Yamaguchi fails to teach to transfer water received from a water-filling system at a first set of ice cavities of the plurality of ice cavities at the first end of the twistable ice cube tray to a second set of ice cavities of the plurality of ice cavities at the second end of the twistable ice cube tray.
Beck teaches a water-filling system (146, 147, 148, 149, 151) to transfer water received from the water-filling system (146, 147, 148, 149, 151) at a first set of ice cavities of a plurality of ice cavities (31) at a first end of the twistable ice cube tray (25) to a second set of ice cavities of the plurality of ice cavities at the second end of the twistable ice cube tray (see Figure 2).
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 to transfer water received from a water-filling system at a first set of ice cavities of the plurality of ice cavities at the first end of the twistable ice cube tray to a second set of ice cavities of the plurality of ice cavities at the second end of the twistable ice cube tray to the structure of Yamaguchi as taught by Beck in order to advantageously provide automatic filling of the tray when needed (see Beck, Column 7, lines 25-51).
Regarding Claim 10: Yamaguchi modified supra fails to teach wherein the plurality of ice cavities is configured to freeze water into the plurality of ice cubes that each have a mass of up to 1.5 grams. However, the change in measurements is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result and optimization through routine experimentation. In this case, the recognized result is that a change in the measurements of water would result in different procedural steps for ice making (see Yamaguchi, paragraphs [0015]-[0029] of the machine translation). Therefore, since the general conditions and structures of the claim were disclosed in the prior art by Yamaguchi modified supra, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the ice making structure as disclosed by Yamaguchi modified supra and having the efficiency altered with changes in ratios and measurement ranges. Furthermore, the ice cube measurement amount is recognized by the Examiner to be a general measurement, and a measurement that would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art would before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2144.04 IV A and 2144.05 I, II A and B.
Regarding Claim 15: Yamaguchi teaches wherein each of the plurality of ice cavities (4) is configured to produce an ice cube having at least one of an accordion shape, a button shape, a conical shape, a round dimple shape, a donut shape, a square shape (see Figure 6 (b)), a pyramid shape, or a bar shape.
Regarding Claim 17: Yamaguchi teaches an automatic ice-making system (abstract) for a refrigeration appliance (refrigerator, abstract), comprising: a twistable ice cube tray (1) configured to receive water at a first end (functional limitation) of the twistable ice cube tray (1), the twistable ice cube tray (1) comprising: a plurality of ice cavities (4) arranged along the twistable ice cube tray (1) from the first end to an opposite second end for freezing the water into a plurality of ice cubes (within 4); and a plurality of slanted bridges (2), each slanted bridge of the plurality of slanted bridges (2) being positioned between adjacent ice cavities (4) of the plurality of ice cavities (4) in a first end-to-second end direction and sloping downward from the first end toward the second end to transfer the water from a first set of ice cavities (4) of the plurality of ice cavities (4) at the first end to a second set of ice cavities (4) of the plurality of ice cavities at the second end of the twistable ice cube tray (see Figures 1 (b) and 2(b)).
Yamaguchi fails to teach a water-filling system; and the twistable ice cube tray configured to receive water from the water-filling system at a first end of the twistable ice cube tray.
Beck teaches a water-filling system (146, 147, 148, 149, 151); and a twistable ice cube tray (25) configured to receive water from the water-filling system (146, 147, 148, 149, 151) at a first end of the twistable ice cube tray (see Figure 2).
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 a water-filling system; and the twistable ice cube tray configured to receive water from the water-filling system at a first end of the twistable ice cube tray to the structure of Yamaguchi as taught by Beck in order to advantageously provide automatic filling of the tray when needed (see Beck, Column 7, lines 25-51).
Regarding Claim 18: Yamaguchi modified supra fails to teach wherein the plurality of ice cavities is configured to freeze water into the plurality of ice cubes that each have a mass of up to 1.5 grams. However, the change in measurements is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result and optimization through routine experimentation. In this case, the recognized result is that a change in the measurements of water would result in different procedural steps for ice making (see Yamaguchi, paragraphs [0015]-[0029] of the machine translation). Therefore, since the general conditions and structures of the claim were disclosed in the prior art by Yamaguchi modified supra, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the ice making structure as disclosed by Yamaguchi modified supra and having the efficiency altered with changes in ratios and measurement ranges. Furthermore, the ice cube measurement amount is recognized by the Examiner to be a general measurement, and a measurement that would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art would before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2144.04 IV A and 2144.05 I, II A and B.
Regarding Claim 21: Yamaguchi modified supra fails to teach further comprising a second plurality of slanted bridges, each slanted bridge of the second plurality of slanted bridges being positioned between adjacent ice cavities of the plurality of ice cavities in a second direction that is perpendicular to the first end-to-second end direction and sloping downward in the second direction to transfer water received from the water-filling system from ice cavities located near a middle of the twistable ice cube tray to ice cavities located near opposite edges of the twistable ice cube tray.
However, Yamaguchi teaches the structure of the slanted bridges connecting the ice cavities (see Figures 1 (b) and 2 (b)). 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 a second plurality of slanted bridges in a second direction to the structure of Yamaguchi in order to advantageously provide varying the slope of the water channels between the ice cavities to allow for water flow (see page 4 of machine translation). Furthermore, absent evidence of criticality, change in shape is merely design choice and would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art would before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2144.04 IV A. and B.
Claims 3, 5-6, 11, 13-14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi et al. (JPH 1030864 A, machine translation), hereafter referred to as “Yamaguchi,” in view of Beck et al. (3,217,508), here after referred to as “Beck,” as applied to claims 1, 7, 9-10, 15, 17-18, and 21 above, and further in view of Kawabata et al. (JP 2000088410 A, machine translation), hereafter referred to as “Kawabata.”
Regarding Claim 3: Yamaguchi modified supra fails to teach further comprising: a thermistor system coupled to the twistable ice cube tray and configured to detect a temperature of the water in the plurality of ice cavities, wherein a top surface of the thermistor system has a same geometry as a bottom surface of the second set of ice cavities and a third set of ice cavities of the plurality of ice cavities at the second end of the twistable ice cube tray, and wherein the thermistor system comprises a thermistor positioned between adjacent ice cavities of the second set of ice cavities and the third set of ice cavities.
Kawabata teaches a thermistor system (9a, 9b, 9c) coupled to a twistable ice cube tray (1) and configured to detect a temperature of water in a plurality of ice cavities (cavities in 1), wherein a top surface of the thermistor system (curve of 9b) has a same geometry as a bottom surface of a second set of ice cavities and a third set of ice cavities of the plurality of ice cavities (see Figure 6) at a second end of the twistable ice cube tray (see 1, Figure 2), and wherein the thermistor system (9a, 9b, 9c) comprises a thermistor (9b) positioned between adjacent ice cavities of the second set of ice cavities and the third set of ice cavities (see Figure 6).
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 a thermistor system coupled to the twistable ice cube tray and configured to detect a temperature of the water in the plurality of ice cavities, wherein a top surface of the thermistor system has a same geometry as a bottom surface of the second set of ice cavities and a third set of ice cavities of the plurality of ice cavities at the second end of the twistable ice cube tray, and wherein the thermistor system comprises a thermistor positioned between adjacent ice cavities of the second set of ice cavities and the third set of ice cavities to the structure of Yamaguchi modified supra as taught by Kawabata in order to advantageously provide accurate temperature readings of the ice tray by having the temperature detector positioned as close to the tray as possible (page 5 of machine translation of Kawabata).
Regarding Claim 5: Yamaguchi modified supra fails to teach wherein the thermistor system further comprises: a thermistor insulator configured to insulate the thermistor; and a thermistor cover configured to hold the thermistor and the thermistor insulator against the bottom surface of the twistable ice cube tray, and coupled to a slanted bridge of the plurality of slanted bridges that is adjacent to the second set of ice cavities and the third set of ice cavities.
Kawabata teaches wherein a thermistor system further comprises: a thermistor insulator (9c, made of insulating foam, page 5 of machine translation) configured to insulate a thermistor (9c, made of insulating foam, page 5 of machine translation); and a thermistor cover (9a) configured to hold the thermistor (9b) and the thermistor insulator (9c, made of insulating foam, page 5 of machine translation) against a bottom surface of a twistable ice cube tray (1), and coupled to a bridge of a plurality of bridges (9 goes under 1) that is adjacent to a second set of ice cavities and a third set of ice cavities (see Figure 2).
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 wherein the thermistor system further comprises: a thermistor insulator configured to insulate the thermistor; and a thermistor cover configured to hold the thermistor and the thermistor insulator against the bottom surface of the twistable ice cube tray, and coupled to a slanted bridge of the plurality of slanted bridges that is adjacent to the second set of ice cavities and the third set of ice cavities to the structure of Yamaguchi modified supra as taught by Kawabata in order to advantageously provide accurate temperature readings of the ice tray by having the temperature detector positioned as close to the tray as possible (page 5 of machine translation of Kawabata).
Regarding Claim 6: Yamaguchi modified supra teaches wherein the thermistor (9b of Kawabata) has a cylindrical shape (see Figures 2 and 6 of Kawabata), and wherein the bottom surface of the second set of ice cavities and the third set of ice cavities of the twistable ice cube tray has the same geometry comprising the cylindrical shape of the thermistor (see Figure 6 of Kawabata, modified Yamaguchi to allow for the thermistor to sit under the tray).
Regarding Claim 11: Yamaguchi modified supra fails to teach wherein a top surface of a thermistor system coupled to a bottom of the twistable ice cube tray has a same geometry as a bottom surface of the second set of ice cavities and a third set of ice cavities of the plurality of ice cavities at the second end of the twistable ice cube tray, and wherein the thermistor system comprises a thermistor positioned between adjacent ice cavities of the third set of ice cavities.
Kawabata teaches a top surface of a thermistor system (9a, 9b, 9c) coupled to a bottom of a twistable ice cube tray (1) has a same geometry as a bottom surface of a second set of ice cavities and a third set of ice cavities of the plurality of ice cavities (see Figure 6) at a second end of the twistable ice cube tray (see Figure 2), and wherein the thermistor system (9a, 9b, 9c) comprises a thermistor (9b) positioned between adjacent ice cavities of the third set of ice cavities (see Figure 6).
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 wherein a top surface of a thermistor system coupled to a bottom of the twistable ice cube tray has a same geometry as a bottom surface of the second set of ice cavities and a third set of ice cavities of the plurality of ice cavities at the second end of the twistable ice cube tray, and wherein the thermistor system comprises a thermistor positioned between adjacent ice cavities of the third set of ice cavities to the structure of Yamaguchi modified supra as taught by Kawabata in order to advantageously provide accurate temperature readings of the ice tray by having the temperature detector positioned as close to the tray as possible (page 5 of machine translation of Kawabata).
Regarding Claim 13: Yamaguchi modified supra fails to teach wherein the thermistor system further comprises: a thermistor insulator configured to insulate the thermistor; and a thermistor cover configured to couple hold the thermistor and the thermistor insulator against the bottom surface of the twistable ice cube tray, and coupled to a slanted bridge of the plurality of slanted bridges that is adjacent to the second set of ice cavities and the third set of ice cavities.
Kawabata teaches wherein a thermistor system further comprises: a thermistor insulator (9c, made of insulating foam, page 5 of machine translation) configured to insulate a thermistor (9c, made of insulating foam, page 5 of machine translation); and a thermistor cover (9a) configured to hold the thermistor (9b) and the thermistor insulator (9c, made of insulating foam, page 5 of machine translation) against a bottom surface of a twistable ice cube tray (1), and coupled to a bridge of a plurality of bridges (9 goes under 1) that is adjacent to a second set of ice cavities and a third set of ice cavities (see Figure 2).
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 wherein the thermistor system further comprises: a thermistor insulator configured to insulate the thermistor; and a thermistor cover configured to couple hold the thermistor and the thermistor insulator against the bottom surface of the twistable ice cube tray, and coupled to a slanted bridge of the plurality of slanted bridges that is adjacent to the second set of ice cavities and the third set of ice cavities to the structure of Yamaguchi modified supra as taught by Kawabata in order to advantageously provide accurate temperature readings of the ice tray by having the temperature detector positioned as close to the tray as possible (page 5 of machine translation of Kawabata).
Regarding Claim 14: Yamaguchi modified supra teaches wherein the thermistor (9b of Kawabata) has a cylindrical shape (see Figures 2 and 6 of Kawabata), and wherein the bottom surface of the second set of ice cavities and the third set of ice cavities of the twistable ice cube tray has the same geometry comprising the cylindrical shape of the thermistor (see Figure 6 of Kawabata, modified Yamaguchi to allow for the thermistor to sit under the tray).
Regarding Claim 19: Yamaguchi modified supra fails to teach further comprising: a thermistor system coupled to the twistable ice cube tray and configured to detect a temperature of the water in the plurality of ice cavities, wherein a top surface of the thermistor system has a same geometry as a bottom surface of the second set of ice cavities and a third set of ice cavities of the plurality of ice cavities at the second end of the twistable ice cube tray, and wherein the thermistor system comprises a thermistor positioned between adjacent ice cavities of the second set of ice cavities and the third set of ice cavities.
Kawabata teaches a thermistor system (9a, 9b, 9c) coupled to a twistable ice cube tray (1) and configured to detect a temperature of water in a plurality of ice cavities (page 5 of the machine translation), wherein a top surface of the thermistor system (9b) has a same geometry as a bottom surface of a second set of ice cavities and a third set of ice cavities of the plurality of ice cavities (see Figure 6) at a second end (see Figures 2 and 6) of the twistable ice cube tray (1), and wherein the thermistor system (9a, 9b, 9c) comprises a thermistor (9b) positioned between adjacent ice cavities of the second set of ice cavities and the third set of ice cavities (see Figure 6).
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 a thermistor system coupled to the twistable ice cube tray and configured to detect a temperature of the water in the plurality of ice cavities, wherein a top surface of the thermistor system has a same geometry as a bottom surface of the second set of ice cavities and a third set of ice cavities of the plurality of ice cavities at the second end of the twistable ice cube tray, and wherein the thermistor system comprises a thermistor positioned between adjacent ice cavities of the second set of ice cavities and the third set of ice cavities to the structure of Yamaguchi modified supra as taught by Kawabata in order to advantageously provide accurate temperature readings of the ice tray by having the temperature detector positioned as close to the tray as possible (page 5 of machine translation of Kawabata).
Claims 4, 12, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi et al. (JPH 1030864 A, machine translation), hereafter referred to as “Yamaguchi,” in view of Beck et al. (3,217,508), here after referred to as “Beck,” and Kawabata et al. (JP 2000088410 A, machine translation), hereafter referred to as “Kawabata,” as applied to claims 3, 11, and 19 above, and further in view of Yoshiyuki et al. (JP 2005351624 A), hereafter referred to as “Yoshiyuki.”
Regarding Claims 4, 12, and 20: Yamaguchi modified supra fails to teach wherein a cavity defined by each of the second set of ice cavities and the third set of ice cavities has a first depth that is smaller than a second depth of other cavities defined by other ice cavities in the plurality of ice cavities.
Yoshiyuki teaches a cavity defined by each of a second set of ice cavities and a third set of ice cavities has a first depth that is smaller than a second depth of other cavities defined by other ice cavities in a plurality of ice cavities (see abstract).
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 wherein a cavity defined by each of the second set of ice cavities and the third set of ice cavities has a first depth that is smaller than a second depth of other cavities defined by other ice cavities in the plurality of ice cavities to the structure of Yamaguchi modified supra as taught by Yoshiyuki in order to advantageously provide various ice sizes according to the user’s needs (see Yoshiyuki, abstract, machine translations).
Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi et al. (JPH 1030864 A, machine translation), hereafter referred to as “Yamaguchi,” in view of Kawabata et al. (JP 2000088410 A, machine translation), hereafter referred to as “Kawabata,” as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Nichols (3,763,662).
Regarding Claim 8: Yamaguchi modified supra fails to teach wherein the twistable ice cube tray further comprises: a cam at the second end of the twistable ice cube tray and configured to rotate the second end of the twistable ice cube tray; and a stop bar at the first end of the twistable ice cube tray and configured to prevent a rotation of the first end of the twistable ice cube tray to cause the twistable ice cube tray to twist and expel the plurality of ice cubes.
Nichols teaches a twistable ice cube tray (title, 11) further comprises: a cam (29, 30) at a second end of the twistable ice cube tray (11) and configured to rotate the second end of the twistable ice cube tray (Column 2, lines 22-46); and a stop bar (22, 23) at a first end of the twistable ice cube tray (11) and configured to prevent a rotation of the first end of the twistable ice cube tray to cause the twistable ice cube tray (11) to twist and expel a plurality of ice cubes (26, Column 2, lines 22-46).
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 wherein the twistable ice cube tray further comprises: a cam at the second end of the twistable ice cube tray and configured to rotate the second end of the twistable ice cube tray; and a stop bar at the first end of the twistable ice cube tray and configured to prevent a rotation of the first end of the twistable ice cube tray to cause the twistable ice cube tray to twist and expel the plurality of ice cubes to the structure of Yamaguchi modified supra as taught by Nichols in order to advantageously provide controlled movement of the rotation of the tray during the harvesting (see Nichols, Column 2, lines 22-46).
Regarding Claim 16: Yamaguchi modified supra fails to teach further comprising: a cam at the second end of the twistable ice cube tray and configured to rotate the second end of the twistable ice cube tray; and a stop bar at the first end of the twistable ice cube tray and configured to prevent a rotation of the first end of the twistable ice cube tray to cause the twistable ice cube tray to twist and expel the plurality of ice cubes.
Nichols teaches a cam (29, 30) at a second end (see Figure 2) of a twistable ice cube tray (title, 11) and configured to rotate the second end of the twistable ice cube tray (11); and a stop bar (22, 23) at a first end (see Figure 1) of the twistable ice cube tray (11) and configured to prevent a rotation of the first end of the twistable ice cube tray (11) to cause the twistable ice cube tray (11) to twist and expel a plurality of ice cubes (26, Column 2, lines 22-46).
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 a cam at the second end of the twistable ice cube tray and configured to rotate the second end of the twistable ice cube tray; and a stop bar at the first end of the twistable ice cube tray and configured to prevent a rotation of the first end of the twistable ice cube tray to cause the twistable ice cube tray to twist and expel the plurality of ice cubes to the structure of Yamaguchi modified supra as taught by Nichols in order to advantageously provide controlled movement of the rotation of the tray during the harvesting (see Nichols, Column 2, lines 22-46).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Mott (2,481,525).
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 KIRSTIN U OSWALD whose telephone number is (571)270-3557. The examiner can normally be reached 10 a.m. - 6 p.m. M-F.
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, Len Tran can be reached at 571-272-1184. 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.
/KIRSTIN U OSWALD/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/LEN TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763