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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/18/2025 has been entered.
Status
This Office Action is in response to the remarks and amendments filed on 07/18/205. Claims 1-2, 6, 8, 10, 20, and 22-36 remain pending for consideration.
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 1-2, 6, 8, 10, 30-31, and 33 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 limitations “…a portion of a wall for providing the cell…” and “…a portion of a wall for providing the cell…” which render the claim indefinite because the claim as written leave the structure ambiguous in nature as it become difficult to tell if the claim is referencing a previously claimed element or disclosing an element in addition to the previously claimed element.
Claims 2, 6, 8, 10, 30-31, and 33 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 22-24, 26, and 35-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son et al. (US20130014536A1, herein after referred to as Son), in view of McCollough et al. (US 20100218542 A1, herein after referred to as McCollough), in view of Song et al. (US 20200340726 A1, herein after referred to as Song), and in further view of Je et al. (US 20170122644 A1, herein after referred to as Je).
Regarding claim 22, Son teaches an ice maker (ice maker 100 Fig. 3) comprising: a cell (shell 150 Fig. 6) in which a liquid (disclosed “water” in paragraph [0004]) is phase changed to ice (paragraph [0004]); a first tray (recessed part 113 Fig. 3) configured to form at least a portion (corresponds to the top portion of the wall formed by the combination of recessed part 113 and recessed part 125 Fig. 6) of a wall (combination of recessed part 113 and recessed part 125 Fig. 6) for providing the cell (Fig. 6); a second tray (tray body 123 Fig. 3) forming at least another portion of the wall (corresponds to the bottom portion of the wall formed by the combination of recessed part 113 and recessed part 125 Fig. 6) for providing the cell; a first tray case (tray part 112 Fig. 3); a first heater (ice separating heater 161 Fig. 3) to transfer heat to the first tray so that the ice is separated from a surface of the first tray (inner surface of recessed part 113 Fig. 6 and paragraph [0085]); wherein the second tray is capable of being moved (paragraph [0086]) after a first heating process (the heating process described in paragraph [0085]), and wherein in a state (state illustrated in Fig. 10) in which the first tray is in contact with the second tray (Fig. 10), the first heating process is performed (paragraph [0085]).
Son teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach “wherein the ice is separated from the first tray through at least two heating processes of the first heater, wherein the at least two heating processes of the first heater comprise: the first heating process by operating the first heater, and a second heating process by operating the first heater and performed after the first heating process”.
However, McCollough teaches wherein ice is separated from a first tray (paragraph [0124] where mold 182 Fig. 23C corresponds to the first tray of Son) through at least two heating processes of the a heater (correspond to the two heating processes described in paragraphs [0124] and [0126] where heating element 270 corresponds to the first heater of Son), wherein the at least two heating processes of the first heater comprise: the first heating process (the heating process described in paragraph [0124]) by operating the first heater (paragraph [0124]), and a second heating process (the heating process described in paragraph [0126]) by operating the first heater and performed after the first heating process (paragraph [0126]) to remove any remaining ice pieces after the first heating process.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of Son to include “wherein the ice is separated from the first tray through at least two heating processes of the first heater, wherein the at least two heating processes of the first heater comprise: the first heating process by operating the first heater, and a second heating process by operating the first heater and performed after the first heating process” in view of the teachings of McCollough to remove any remaining ice pieces after the first heating process.
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “the first tray case coupled to the first tray”.
However, Song teaches a first tray case (container supporter 160 Fig. 6 corresponds to the first tray case of Son) coupled to a first tray (Fig. 6 where ice making container 110 corresponds to the first tray of Son) as a designer option to provide a case that is detachable from the tray.
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 first tray case coupled to the first tray” in view of the teachings of Song as a designer option to provide a case that is detachable from the tray.
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “a heater case at which the first heater is installed”.
However, Je teaches a heater case (supporting member 180 Fig. 8) at which a first heater (ice removal heater 200 Fig. 8 corresponds to the first heater of Son) is installed (Fig. 8) to protect the heater from accidental damage.
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 heater case at which the first heater is installed” in view of the teachings of Je to protect the heater from accidental damage.
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein the heater case is integrally formed with the first tray case”.
However, Applicant has not disclosed that having “wherein the heater case is integrally formed with the first tray case” does anything more than produce the predictable result of providing a support and protection for the heater. Since it has been held that making integral parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, see MPEP 2144.04 V. B, 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 Son and meet the claimed limitations in order to provide the predictable results of providing a support and protection for the heater.
Regarding claim 23, the combined teachings teach further comprising a bracket (mounting part 111 Fig. 4 of Son) outside which a portion of the ice maker (Fig. 4 of Son) is provided.
Regarding claim 24, the combined teachings teach wherein the first tray case and the bracket are integrally provided (Figs. 3-4 of Son).
Regarding claim 26, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein the first tray case and the bracket are coupled to each other after the first tray case is manufactured as a separate component from the bracket”.
However, Applicant has not disclosed that having “wherein the first tray case and the bracket are coupled to each other after the first tray case is manufactured as a separate component from the bracket” does anything more than produce the predictable result of providing mounting means for the ice maker inside the refrigerator. Since it has been held that making separable parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, see MPEP 2144.04 V. 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 Son and meet the claimed limitations in order to provide the predictable results of providing mounting means for the ice maker inside the refrigerator.
Regarding claim 35, the combined teachings teach a refrigerator (refrigerator 1 Fig. 2 of Son) comprising: a cabinet (cabinet 2 Fig. 2 of Son) including a storage chamber (refrigerating compartment 3 Fig. 2 of Son); a door (refrigerating compartment door 5 Fig. 2 of Son) that opens and closes the storage chamber (Figs. 1-2 of Son).
Regarding claim 36, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein the first tray is made of flexible material or soft material”.
However, a different embodiment of Son teaches wherein a first tray (upper tray 620 Fig. 29 corresponds to the first tray of Son) is made of flexible material (paragraph [0144]) to improve the ice separation process by employing both a heater and ejecting pins.
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 first tray is made of flexible material or soft material” in view of the teachings of a different embodiment of Son to improve the ice separation process by employing both a heater and ejecting pins.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son, in view of McCollough, in view of Song, in view of Je, and in further view of Boarman et al. (US20140165598A1, herein after referred to as Boarman).
Regarding claim 25, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “further comprising a first tray cover coupled to the first tray, wherein the first tray cover has an opening formed to correspond to a shape of the cell of the first tray”.
However, Boarman teaches further comprising a first tray cover (chill ring cover 504 Fig. 35) coupled to a first tray (Fig. 35 where chill ring 508 corresponds to the first tray of Son), wherein the first tray cover has an opening (fig. 35 where it is understood that there is an opening at the bottom of chill ring cover 504 to allow the insertion of chill ring 508) formed to correspond to a shape of the cell of the first tray (Figs. 35 and 37 where mold cavity 440 corresponds to the cell of the first tray of Son) to protect the tray from accidental damage.
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 first tray cover coupled to the first tray, wherein the first tray cover has an opening formed to correspond to a shape of the cell of the first tray” in view of the teachings of Boarman to protect the tray from accidental damage.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son, in view of McCollough, in view of Song, in view of Je, and in further view of Son et al. (US 20130081412 A1, herein after referred to as Son’12).
Regarding claims 27, the combined teachings teach wherein after the second tray is moved to an ice separation position (Fig. 12 of Son), the second tray moves toward a liquid supply position (Fig. 9 and paragraph [0092] of Son).
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein after the second heating process is ended, the second tray moves toward an ice separation position”.
However, Son’12 teaches wherein after a second heating process (step S16 Fig. 10 corresponds to the second heating process of Ji) is ended, a second tray (tray body 14 Fig. 3 corresponds to the second tray of Son) moves toward an ice separation position (Fig. 9 where the illustrated position of tray body 14 corresponds to the ice separation position of Son) to separate the ice from the second tray.
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 after the second heating process is ended, the second tray moves toward an ice separation position” in view of the teachings of Son’12 to separate the ice from the second tray.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 6, 8, 10, 30-31, and 33 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 20, 28-29, 32, and 34 are allowed.
Reasons for Allowance
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, the prior art of record when consider as a whole, alone or in combination, neither anticipates nor renders obvious “An ice maker comprising: a cell in which a liquid is phase-changed into ice; a first tray configured to form at least a portion of a wall for providing the cell; a second tray configured to form at least a portion of a wall for providing the cell; a first heater to transfer heat to the first tray so that the ice is separated from a surface of the first tray; and a second heater to be controlled so that heat is supplied to the cell in at least partial sections while the cell is cooled to make a transparent ice, wherein the ice is separated from the first tray through at least two heating processes of the first heater, wherein the at least two heating processes of the first heater comprise: a first heating process by operating the first heater, and a second heating process by operating the first heater and performed after the first heating process, and wherein a heating amount of the first heater at least one period in an ice separation process differs from a heating amount of the second heater at least one period in an ice making process”.
The closet prior art references, Son (US20130014536A1), Norihiro (JPH0674624A), and Ducharme (US20100218518A1) teach “An ice maker comprising: a cell in which a liquid is phase-changed into ice; a first tray configured to form at least a portion of a wall for providing the cell; a second tray configured to form at least a portion of a wall for providing the cell; a first heater to transfer heat to the first tray so that the ice is separated from a surface of the first tray; and a second heater to be controlled so that heat is supplied to the cell in at least partial sections while the cell is cooled to make a transparent ice, wherein the ice is separated from the first tray through at least two heating processes of the first heater, wherein the at least two heating processes of the first heater comprise: a first heating process by operating the first heater, and a second heating process by operating the first heater and performed after the first heating process”.
However, the references fail to disclose, suggest or teach “wherein a heating amount of the first heater at least one period in an ice separation process differs from a heating amount of the second heater at least one period in an ice making process”.
Therefore, independent claim 1 with dependent claims therefrom (claims 2, 6, 8, 10, 30-31, and 33) are considered allowable.
Regarding claim 20, the prior art of record when consider as a whole, alone or in combination, neither anticipates nor renders obvious “An ice maker comprising: a cell in which a liquid is phase-changed into ice; a first tray configured to form at least a portion of a wall for providing the cell; a second tray configured to form at least another portion of the wall for providing the cell; and a first heater to transfer heat to the first tray so that the ice is separated from a surface of the first tray, wherein the first heater is capable of being turned on for ice separation after ice making is performed, wherein it is determined whether a first turn-off reference of the first heater is satisfied after the first heater is turned on, wherein the first heater is capable of being turned off when the first turn-off reference of the first heater is satisfied, wherein the second tray is capable of being moved, wherein the first heater is capable of being turned on again for additional heating for separating the ice attached to the first tray after the first heater is turned off and the second tray is moved, and wherein the first heater is capable of being turned off again when a second turn-off reference of the first heater is satisfied after the first heater is turned on again”.
The closet prior art references, Son (US20130014536A1) and Ducharme (US20100218518A1), teach “An ice maker comprising: a cell in which a liquid is phase-changed into ice; a first tray configured to form at least a portion of a wall for providing the cell; a second tray configured to form at least another portion of the wall for providing the cell; and a first heater to transfer heat to the first tray so that the ice is separated from a surface of the first tray, wherein the first heater is capable of being turned on for ice separation after ice making is performed, wherein it is determined whether a first turn-off reference of the first heater is satisfied after the first heater is turned on, wherein the first heater is capable of being turned off when the first turn-off reference of the first heater is satisfied, wherein the second tray is capable of being moved, and wherein the first heater is capable of being turned off again when a second turn-off reference of the first heater is satisfied after the first heater is turned on again”.
However, the references fail to disclose, suggest or teach “wherein the first heater is capable of being turned on again for additional heating for separating the ice attached to the first tray after the first heater is turned off and the second tray is moved”.
Therefore, independent claim 20 with dependent claims therefrom (claims 28-29, 32, and 34) are considered allowable.
Conclusion
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