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 06/22/2026. The previous objections to the claims have been withdrawn. Claims 1-20 remain pending for consideration.
This Office Action contains a New Grounds of Rejection. Since these new grounds of rejection did not result from an amendment to the claims, this Office Action is being made non-final to afford the applicant the opportunity to respond to the new grounds of rejection.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 17, the phrase “a second a plurality of teeth” is grammatically incorrect and for examination purposes will be interpreted as -- a second plurality of teeth --
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 3-5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taniguchi (JP2002090014A), in view of Kim et al. (US 20100126203 A1, herein after referred to as Kim), and in further view of Ji et al. (US 20180245832 A1, herein after referred to Ji).
Regarding claim 1, Taniguchi teaches a refrigeration system (electric refrigerator 1 Fig. 1) comprising: a freezer component (freezer 4 Fig. 1) defined by a top wall (top wall of freezer 4 Fig. 1), a bottom wall (bottom wall of freezer 4 Fig. 1) positioned opposite the top wall (Fig. 1), a pair of sidewalls (a person skilled in the art would recognize that freezer 4 has 2 sidewalls) extending between the top wall and the bottom wall (a person skilled in the art would recognize that the sidewalls of freezer 4 would be extending between the top wall and the bottom wall), a rear wall (rear wall of freezer 4 Fig. 1) positioned adjacent the pair of sidewalls (a person skilled in the art would recognize that the sidewalls of freezer 4 would be adjacent to the rear wall), and a door (door 4a Fig. 1) positioned opposite the rear wall (Fig. 1); and an ice maker system (ice making part 15a Fig. 3B) comprising: a plurality of trays (ice tray 17a-17e Fig. 3B); a plurality of gears (gears 19a-19e Fig. 3B), each of the plurality of gears being fixedly attached to a corresponding one of the plurality of trays (Fig. 3B); a motor (electric motor 20a Fig. 3B) including a shaft (shaft 18a Fig. 3B) rotatably coupled to the motor (Fig. 3B and paragraph [0018]); the shaft including a surface (the surface of shaft 18a supporting gear 19a Fig. 3B) for engaging at least one of the plurality of gears; wherein the plurality of gears includes at least a first gear (gear 19a Fig. 3B) and a second gear (gear 19b Fig. 3B); and the first gear comprises a plurality of perimeter teeth (Fig. 3B) for coupling the first gear with the second gear (Fig. 3B), such that rotation of the first gear causes rotation of the second gear (paragraph [0018]).
Taniguchi teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach “the door hingedly connected to at least one of the pair of sidewalls”.
However, Kim teaches a door (freezing chamber door 40 Fig. 4A corresponds to the door of Taniguchi) hingedly connected to at least one of a pair of sidewalls (right sidewall Fig. 4A where the left and right sidewalls of freezing chamber 20 correspond to the pair of sidewalls of Taniguchi) to provide a simple and cheap mean of connecting a door to a refrigerator’s cabinet.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of Taniguchi to include “the door hingedly connected to at least one of the pair of sidewalls” in view of the teachings of Kim to provide a simple and cheap mean of connecting a door to a refrigerator’s cabinet.
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “the shaft surface is a threaded surface; the first gear is engaged with the threaded surface”.
However, Ji teaches a shaft surface (the surface of motor shaft 41a Fig. 8 corresponds to the shaft surface of Taniguchi) is a threaded surface (worm wheel 210 Fig. 8); a first gear (connection part 220 Fig. 8 and paragraph [0128] corresponds to the first gear of Taniguchi) is engaged with the threaded surface (Fig. 8) to increase or decrease the rotational speed of the shaft in proportion to the rotational speed of the first gear (paragraph [0129]).
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 shaft surface is a threaded surface; the first gear is engaged with the threaded surface” in view of the teachings of Ji to increase or decrease the rotational speed of the shaft in proportion to the rotational speed of the first gear.
Regarding claim 3, the combined teachings teach wherein the ice maker system further comprises a mounting bracket (framing body 16 Fig. 3B of Taniguchi) for securing the plurality of trays to at least one of the pair of sidewalls of the freezer component (Fig. 1 and paragraph [0014] of Taniguchi).
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “the mounting bracket is a plurality of mounting brackets”.
However, Applicant has not disclosed that having “the mounting bracket is a plurality of mounting brackets” does anything more than produce the predictable result of mounting the icemaker inside the freezer compartment. Since it has been held that a duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, see MPEP 2144.04 VI. 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 the combined teachings and meet the claimed limitations in order to provide the predictable results of mounting the icemaker inside the freezer compartment.
Regarding claim 4, the combined teachings teach wherein each of the plurality of trays is rotatably coupled to the mounting bracket (paragraph [0014] of Taniguchi), such that each of the plurality of trays is configured to rotate relative the mounting bracket (paragraphs [0014] and [0018] of Taniguchi).
Regarding claim 5, the combined teachings teach wherein each of the plurality of trays further include a plurality of cavities (Fig. 3B of Taniguchi).
Regarding claim 7, the combined teachings teach wherein each of the plurality of gears has an equal radius (Fig. 3B of Taniguchi), such that each of the plurality of gears rotates at the same rate of revolution (referring to Fig. 3B of Taniguchi, a person skilled in the art would recognize that gears 19a-19e will rotate at the same speed since they are all the same size and are directly connected).
Claims 2, 6, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taniguchi, Kim, and Ji as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tsuda et al. (JP2005351624A, herein after referred to as Tsuda).
Regarding claim 2, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein the ice maker system further comprises a plurality of containers positioned beneath the plurality of trays”.
However, Tsuda teaches wherein an ice maker system (automatic ice making device 10 Fig. 2 corresponds to the ice maker system of Taniguchi) further comprises a plurality of containers (sections 14a and 14b Figs. 2-3) positioned beneath a plurality of trays (Figs. 2-3 where first ice tray 11 and the second ice tray 12 correspond to the plurality of trays of Taniguchi) to collect and separate the different types of generated ice pieces.
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 ice maker system further comprises a plurality of containers positioned beneath the plurality of trays” in view of the teachings of Tsuda to collect and separate the different types of generated ice pieces.
Regarding claim 6, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein the plurality of cavities in each of the plurality of trays have at least one of a different shape and a different size”.
However, Tsuda teaches wherein a plurality of cavities (ice chambers 11a and ice chambers 12a Fig. 3 correspond to the plurality of cavities of Taniguchi) in each of the plurality of trays have at least one of a different shape and a different size (paragraph [0038]) to produce ice pieces that can be used for different purposes.
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 plurality of cavities in each of the plurality of trays have at least one of a different shape and a different size” in view of the teachings of Tsuda to produce ice pieces that can be used for different purposes.
Regarding claim 13, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “further comprising at least one sensor for determining a state of a liquid deposited within each of the plurality of trays”.
However, Tsuda teaches further comprising at least one sensor (temperature sensors 11d and 12d Fig. 2) for determining a state (paragraph [0045] where it is understood to be between liquid and solid) of a liquid (disclosed “water” in paragraph [0045]) deposited within each of a plurality of trays (first ice tray 11 and second ice tray 12 Fig. 2 correspond to the plurality of trays to Taniguchi) to determine ice making completion.
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 at least one sensor for determining a state of a liquid deposited within each of the plurality of trays” in view of the teachings of Tsuda to determine ice making completion.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taniguchi, Kim, and Ji as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nishikawa (JP2001165538A).
Regarding claim 8, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein each of the plurality of gears has a different radius, such that each of the plurality of gears rotate at different rates of revolution”.
However, Nishikawa teaches wherein each of a plurality of gears (compound gear 16 and first transmission gear 17 Fig. 3 correspond to the plurality of gears of Taniguchi) has a different radius (Fig. 3), such that each of the plurality of gears rotate at different rates of revolution (paragraphs [0022] and [0034]) to decelerate the rotation output of the shaft (paragraph [0034]).
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 each of the plurality of gears has a different radius, such that each of the plurality of gears rotate at different rates of revolution” in view of the teachings of Nishikawa to decelerate the rotation output of the shaft.
Regarding claim 9, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein the first gear further comprises a second plurality of teeth, separate from the plurality of perimeter teeth, that engages the threaded surface of the shaft”.
However, Nishikawa teaches wherein a first gear (compound gear 16 Fig. 3 corresponds to the first gear of Taniguchi) further comprises a second plurality of teeth (the teeth of helical gear 16a Fig. 3), separate from a plurality of perimeter teeth (Fig. 3 where the teeth of spur gear 16b correspond to the plurality of perimeter teeth of Taniguchi), that engages a threaded surface (Fig. 3 where the surface of worm 15 corresponds to the threaded surface of Ji) of a shaft (Fig. 3 where the shaft of worm 15 corresponds to the shaft of Taniguchi) to decelerate the rotation output of the shaft (paragraph [0034]).
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 gear further comprises a second plurality of teeth, separate from the plurality of perimeter teeth, that engages the threaded surface of the shaft” in view of the teachings of Nishikawa to decelerate the rotation output of the shaft.
Regarding claim 10, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein the plurality of perimeter teeth of the first gear engages a plurality of perimeter teeth formed on the second gear, such that rotation of the first gear in a first direction causes rotation of the second gear in a second direction opposite the first direction”.
However, Nishikawa teaches wherein a plurality of perimeter teeth (the teeth of spur gear 16b Fig. 3 correspond to the plurality of perimeter teeth of Taniguchi) of a first gear (spur gear 16b Fig. 3 corresponds to the first gear of Taniguchi) engages a plurality of perimeter teeth (the teeth of spur gear 17a Fig. 3) formed on a second gear (Fig. 3 where first transmission gear 17 corresponds to the second gear of Taniguchi), such that rotation of the first gear in a first direction (Fig. 3 where a person skilled in the art would recognize that a clockwise rotation of compound gear 16 would cause first transmission gear 17 to rotate counterclockwise) causes rotation of the second gear in a second direction opposite the first direction (Fig. 3 where a person skilled in the art would recognize that a clockwise rotation of compound gear 16 would cause first transmission gear 17 to rotate counterclockwise) to decelerate the rotation output of the shaft (paragraph [0034]).
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 plurality of perimeter teeth of the first gear engages a plurality of perimeter teeth formed on the second gear, such that rotation of the first gear in a first direction causes rotation of the second gear in a second direction opposite the first direction” in view of the teachings of Nishikawa to decelerate the rotation output of the shaft.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taniguchi, Kim, and Ji as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamamoto et al. (JPH09310946A, herein after referred to as Yamamoto).
Regarding claim 11, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “further including an intermediary gear disposed between the first gear and the second gear, such that the intermediary gear engages the plurality of perimeter teeth of both the first gear and the second gear”.
However, Yamamoto teaches further including an intermediary gear (transmission gear 33 Fig. 12) disposed between a first gear (the right power transmission gear 27 Fig. 12 corresponds to the first gear of Taniguchi) and a second gear (the left power transmission gear 27 Fig. 12 corresponds to the second gear of Taniguchi), such that the intermediary gear engages a plurality of perimeter teeth (Fig. 12 where the plurality of teeth of both transmission gears 27 corresponds to the plurality of perimeter teeth of Taniguchi) of both the first gear and the second gear (Fig. 12) to rotate both ice trays uniformly (paragraph [0031]).
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 including an intermediary gear disposed between the first gear and the second gear, such that the intermediary gear engages the plurality of perimeter teeth of both the first gear and the second gear” in view of the teachings of Yamamoto to rotate both ice trays uniformly.
Regarding claim 12, the combined teachings teach wherein rotation of the first gear in a first direction (counterclockwise direction Fig. 12 of Yamamoto) causes rotation of the intermediary gear in a second direction (clockwise direction Fig. 12 of Yamamoto) opposite the first direction, and rotation of the intermediary gear in the second direction causes rotation of the second gear in the first direction (Fig. 12 and paragraph [0031] of Yamamoto).
Claims 14-15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taniguchi, in view of Tsuda, and in further view of Ji.
Regarding claim 14, Taniguchi teaches an ice maker system (ice making part 15a Fig. 3B) comprising: a plurality of trays (ice tray 17a-17e Fig. 3B); a plurality of gears (gears 19a-19e Fig. 3B), each of the plurality of gears being fixedly attached to a corresponding one of the plurality of trays (Fig. 3B); and a motor (electric motor 20a Fig. 3B) having a shaft (shaft 18a Fig. 3B) rotatably coupled to the motor (Fig. 3B and paragraph [0018]); the shaft including a surface (the surface of shaft 18a supporting gear 19a Fig. 3B) for engaging at least one of the plurality of gears; wherein: the plurality of gears includes at least a first gear (gear 19a Fig. 3B) and a second gear (gear 19b Fig. 3B); and the first gear comprises a plurality of perimeter teeth (Fig. 3B) for coupling the first gear with the second gear (Fig. 3B), such that rotation of the first gear causes rotation of the second gear (paragraph [0018]).
Taniguchi teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach “the ice maker system comprising a plurality of containers disposed beneath the plurality of trays”.
However, Tsuda teaches an ice maker system (automatic ice making device 10 Fig. 2 corresponds to the ice maker system of Taniguchi) comprising a plurality of containers (sections 14a and 14b Figs. 2-3) disposed beneath a plurality of trays (Figs. 2-3 where first ice tray 11 and the second ice tray 12 correspond to the plurality of trays of Taniguchi) to collect and separate the different types of generated ice pieces.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of Taniguchi to include “the ice maker system comprising a plurality of containers disposed beneath the plurality of trays” in view of the teachings of Tsuda to collect and separate the different types of generated ice pieces.
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “the shaft surface is a threaded surface; the first gear is engaged with the threaded surface”.
However, Ji teaches a shaft surface (the surface of motor shaft 41a Fig. 8 corresponds to the shaft surface of Taniguchi) is a threaded surface (worm wheel 210 Fig. 8); a first gear (connection part 220 Fig. 8 and paragraph [0128] corresponds to the first gear of Taniguchi) is engaged with the threaded surface (Fig. 8) to increase or decrease the rotational speed of the shaft in proportion to the rotational speed of the first gear (paragraph [0129]).
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 shaft surface is a threaded surface; the first gear is engaged with the threaded surface” in view of the teachings of Ji to increase or decrease the rotational speed of the shaft in proportion to the rotational speed of the first gear.
Regarding claim 15, the combined teachings teach wherein each of the plurality of gears has an equal radius (Fig. 3B of Taniguchi), such that each of the plurality of gears rotates at the same rate of revolution (referring to Fig. 3B of Taniguchi, a person skilled in the art would recognize that gears 19a-19e will rotate at the same speed since they are all the same size and are directly connected).
Regarding claim 20, Taniguchi teaches a method of forming ice (the method described in paragraph [0001]), the method comprising: disposing a plurality of gears (gears 19a-19e Fig. 3B) on a plurality of trays (ice tray 17a-17e Fig. 3B) within a refrigeration system (electric refrigerator 1 Fig. 1), the plurality of gears including at least a first gear (gear 19a Fig. 3B) fixedly attached to a first tray (ice tray 17a Fig. 3B), a second gear (gear 19b Fig. 3B) fixedly attached to a second tray (ice tray 17b Fig. 3B), the first gear being coupled with the second gear (Fig. 3B) such that rotation of the first gear causes rotation of the second gear (paragraph [0018]); a shaft (shaft 18a Fig. 3B) rotatably coupled to a motor (electric motor 20a Fig. 3B); and activating the motor (paragraph [0018]), such that the first gear rotates in a first direction (corresponds to the rotation direction of ice tray 17a Fig. 3B), causing the second gear to rotate (paragraph [0018]), and the first and second trays are correspondingly rotated (paragraph [0018]) to dispose of solidified liquid (disclosed “generated ice” in paragraph [0018]) within the first tray and the second tray (paragraph [0018] and Fig. 1).
Taniguchi teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach “engaging a plurality of teeth formed on the first gear with a threaded surface of the shaft”.
However, Ji teaches engaging a plurality of teeth (worm gear 221 Fig. 8) formed on a first gear (Fig. 8 and paragraph [0128] where connection part 220 corresponds to the first gear of Taniguchi) with a threaded surface (worm wheel 210 Fig. 8) of a shaft (shaft 41a Fig. 8 corresponds to the shaft of Taniguchi) to increase or decrease the rotational speed of the shaft in proportion to the rotational speed of the first gear (paragraph [0129]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the method of Taniguchi to include “engaging a plurality of teeth formed on the first gear with a threaded surface of the shaft” in view of the teachings of Ji to increase or decrease the rotational speed of the shaft in proportion to the rotational speed of the first gear.
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “filling each of the plurality of trays with a liquid; sensing, using at least one sensor, a state of the liquid within each of the plurality of trays; determining, using the at least one sensor, that the liquid within each of the plurality of trays is in a solid state; the solidified liquid within the first tray and the second tray is disposed into separate containers positioned beneath the first tray and the second tray”.
However, Tsuda teaches filling each of a plurality of trays (paragraph [0045] where first ice tray 11 and second ice tray 12 Fig. 2 correspond to the plurality of trays to Taniguchi) with a liquid (disclosed “water” in paragraph [0045]); sensing, using at least one sensor (temperature sensors 11d and 12d Fig. 2), a state of the liquid (paragraph [0045] where it is understood to be between liquid and solid) within each of the plurality of trays; determining, using the at least one sensor, that the liquid within each of the plurality of trays is in a solid state (paragraph [0045]); the solidified liquid within the first tray and the second tray is disposed into separate containers (sections 14a and 14b Figs. 2-3) positioned beneath the first tray and the second tray (Figs. 2-3) to determine ice making completion.
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 “filling each of the plurality of trays with a liquid; sensing, using at least one sensor, a state of the liquid within each of the plurality of trays; determining, using the at least one sensor, that the liquid within each of the plurality of trays is in a solid state; the solidified liquid within the first tray and the second tray is disposed into separate containers positioned beneath the first tray and the second tray” in view of the teachings of Tsuda to determine ice making completion.
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taniguchi, Tsuda, and Ji as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Nishikawa.
Regarding claim 16, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein each of the plurality of gears has a different radius, such that each of the plurality of gears rotate at different rates of revolution”.
However, Nishikawa teaches wherein each of a plurality of gears (compound gear 16 and first transmission gear 17 Fig. 3 correspond to the plurality of gears of Taniguchi) has a different radius (Fig. 3), such that each of the plurality of gears rotate at different rates of revolution (paragraphs [0022] and [0034]) to decelerate the rotation output of the shaft (paragraph [0034]).
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 each of the plurality of gears has a different radius, such that each of the plurality of gears rotate at different rates of revolution” in view of the teachings of Nishikawa to decelerate the rotation output of the shaft.
Regarding claim 17, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein the first gear further comprises a second plurality of teeth, separate from the plurality of perimeter teeth, that engages the threaded surface of the shaft”.
However, Nishikawa teaches wherein a first gear (compound gear 16 Fig. 3 corresponds to the first gear of Taniguchi) further comprises a second plurality of teeth (the teeth of helical gear 16a Fig. 3), separate from a plurality of perimeter teeth (Fig. 3 where the teeth of spur gear 16b correspond to the plurality of perimeter teeth of Taniguchi), that engages a threaded surface (Fig. 3 where the surface of worm 15 corresponds to the threaded surface of Ji) of a shaft (Fig. 3 where the shaft of worm 15 corresponds to the shaft of Taniguchi) to decelerate the rotation output of the shaft (paragraph [0034]).
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 gear further comprises a second plurality of teeth, separate from the plurality of perimeter teeth, that engages the threaded surface of the shaft” in view of the teachings of Nishikawa to decelerate the rotation output of the shaft.
Regarding claim 18, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein the plurality of perimeter teeth of the first gear engages a plurality of perimeter teeth formed on the second gear, such that rotation of the first gear in a first direction causes rotation of the second gear in a second direction opposite the first direction”.
However, Nishikawa teaches wherein a plurality of perimeter teeth (the teeth of spur gear 16b Fig. 3 correspond to the plurality of perimeter teeth of Taniguchi) of a first gear (spur gear 16b Fig. 3 corresponds to the first gear of Taniguchi) engages a plurality of perimeter teeth (the teeth of spur gear 17a Fig. 3) formed on a second gear (Fig. 3 where first transmission gear 17 corresponds to the second gear of Taniguchi), such that rotation of the first gear in a first direction (Fig. 3 where a person skilled in the art would recognize that a clockwise rotation of compound gear 16 would cause first transmission gear 17 to rotate counterclockwise) causes rotation of the second gear in a second direction opposite the first direction (Fig. 3 where a person skilled in the art would recognize that a clockwise rotation of compound gear 16 would cause first transmission gear 17 to rotate counterclockwise) to decelerate the rotation output of the shaft (paragraph [0034]).
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 plurality of perimeter teeth of the first gear engages a plurality of perimeter teeth formed on the second gear, such that rotation of the first gear in a first direction causes rotation of the second gear in a second direction opposite the first direction” in view of the teachings of Nishikawa to decelerate the rotation output of the shaft.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taniguchi, Tsuda, and Ji as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Yamamoto.
Regarding claim 19, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “further including an intermediary gear disposed between the first gear and the second gear, such that the intermediary gear engages the perimeter teeth of both the first gear and the second gear, and wherein rotation of the first gear in a first direction causes rotation of the intermediary gear in a second direction opposite the first direction, and rotation of the intermediary gear in the second direction causes rotation of the second gear in the first direction”.
However, Yamamoto teaches further including an intermediary gear (transmission gear 33 Fig. 12) disposed between a first gear (the right power transmission gear 27 Fig. 12 corresponds to the first gear of Taniguchi) and a second gear (the left power transmission gear 27 Fig. 12 corresponds to the second gear of Taniguchi), such that the intermediary gear engages the perimeter teeth (Fig. 12 where the plurality of teeth of both transmission gears 27 corresponds to the plurality of perimeter teeth of Taniguchi) of both the first gear and the second gear (Fig. 12), and wherein rotation of the first gear in a first direction (counterclockwise direction Fig. 12 of Yamamoto) causes rotation of the intermediary gear in a second direction (clockwise direction Fig. 12 of Yamamoto) opposite the first direction, and rotation of the intermediary gear in the second direction causes rotation of the second gear in the first direction (Fig. 12 and paragraph [0031] of Yamamoto) to rotate both ice trays uniformly (paragraph [0031]).
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 “further including an intermediary gear disposed between the first gear and the second gear, such that the intermediary gear engages the perimeter teeth of both the first gear and the second gear, and wherein rotation of the first gear in a first direction causes rotation of the intermediary gear in a second direction opposite the first direction, and rotation of the intermediary gear in the second direction causes rotation of the second gear in the first direction” in view of the teachings of Yamamoto to rotate both ice trays uniformly.
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
Prosecution Insights