DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/04/2025 has been entered.
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 1-13 and 15-21 are pending. Claim 14 has been canceled. Claims 1, 4, 9, and 12-13 have been amended. Claim 21 is new. By virtue of dependency all dependent claims are amended in scope.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-13 and 15-21 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 § 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 1-13 and 15-21 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.
The claims have indefinite and unclear for the following reasons:
Per MPEP 2173.05(p)II “A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite.” In the instant application, the claims are apparatus claims with various method steps claimed (i.e., the heating process claims in the wherein clauses).
Claims 1, 9, and 12 have “wherein clauses” which are contingent/optional claim language for method steps that appear to need to be programmed into a controller or some type of automated element to control all of the sensors/heaters in the independent claims. The originally filed specification discloses a controller. Absent definitive structure and positive limitation for specific step programmed to the definitive structure, the claims are indefinite. For purposes of examination, the wherein clauses given broadest reasonable interpretation and are contingent. See MPEP 2111.04.
Applicant, during course of prosecution, has amended the claims to remove structure (the previously recited controller) and included “wherein” clauses. Such “wherein” clauses are contingent clauses and thus, optional. (See MPEP 2111.04 I. and II.). Absent any limitations on which specific structure performs or is capable of performing the functional limitations and/or optional manner of operation, the controller (control unit 4 of Uchida) is capable of performing the wherein clauses when programmed for operation. Applicant is recommended to reconsider reciting in the claims the controller and that the “wherein” clauses be amended to what the controller is programmed to do. For purposes of examination, the claim limitations are treated as intended use.
By virtue of dependency, the dependent claims are also rejected.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the cooler" in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
By virtue of dependency, the dependent claims are also rejected.
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 1-13, 15-17, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchida et al. (JPH 09269172 A, machine translation), hereafter referred to as “Uchida” in view of Son et al. (US 2013/0081412 A1), hereafter referred to as “Son."
Regarding Claim 1: Uchida teaches an ice maker (10) comprising: a cell (18)
having a space in which water (38) is phase-changed into ice by cold (in freezer 2, by 5, 6, 7); a first tray (12) configured to define a first portion of the cell (see Figure 2); and a heater (20) configured to supply heat into the cell (18, page 5 of the machine translation), the heater (20) being positioned outside of the cell (see Figure 2), wherein the heater (20) is controlled to provide the heat for a section of the cell in an ice making process (pages 6-8 of machine translation), wherein a process for controlling the heater in the ice making process comprises: a basic heating process (pages 6-8 of the machine translation); and an additional heating process that is performed after the basic heating process, wherein in a section of the basic heating process, a heating amount of the heater is varied (pages 6-8 of the machine translation), and wherein in at least a partial section of the additional heating process, a heating amount of the heater (20) is equal to or less than the heating amount of the heater (20) in the basic heating process (pages 6-8 of the machine translation), a variation in the heating amount of the heater (20) comprises a variation in an output of the heater (pages 6-8 of the machine translation), and in a section of the additional heating process, a heating amount the output of the heater is varied (pages 6-8 of the machine translation).
Uchida fails to teach a second tray configured to define a second portion of the cell.
Son teaches a second tray (12) configured to define a second portion of a cell (space in 113).
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 tray configured to define a second portion of the cell to the structure of Uchida as taught by Son in order to advantageously provide ice cube spheres for clear ice cube balls (see Son, paragraph [0053]).
Regarding Claim 2: Uchida teaches wherein when a predetermined time elapses or when a value measured by a temperature sensor (24) reaches a reference value, the basic heating process is controlled to change from a current process to a next process among a plurality of processes of the basic heating process, and when a first set time elapses, a final process of the basic heating process is ended (pages 6-7 of the machine translation).
Regarding Claim 3: Uchida teaches further comprising a cooler (5, 6, 7)
configured to supply the cold into the cell (via fan 5), wherein, in the basic heating process, the cooler (via control unit 4) is controlled such that a cooling amount of the cooler varies according to a volume per unit height in the cell (driving the fan rotation, pages 7-8 of the machine translation).
Regarding Claim 4: Uchida teaches wherein, in the basic heating
process, the heating amount of the heater (20) is varied according to a volume per unit height in the cell (page 6 of the machine translation).
Regarding Claim 5: Uchida teaches wherein when a predetermined time elapses or when a value measured by a temperature sensor (24) reaches a reference value (pages 6-7 of the machine translation), the additional heating process is controlled to change from a current process to a next process among a plurality of processes of the additional heating process, and a first process of the additional heating process is ended when a set time elapses (pages 6-7 of the machine translation).
Regarding Claim 6: Uchida teaches wherein the basic heating process includes a process of operating the heater for a first set time, and the additional heating process includes a process of operating the heater for a second set time, the second set time being longer than the first set time (page 8 of the machine translation).
Regarding Claim 7: Uchida teaches wherein the basic heating process includes a process of operating the heater (20) for a first set time, and the additional heating process includes: a first process of operating the heater (20) for a second set time; and
a second process of operating the heater for a third set time after the first process, the third set time being equal to or shorter than the second set time (pages 6-7 of the machine translation).
Regarding Claim 8: Uchida teaches wherein the refrigerator (1, see Figure 1)
includes a cabinet (see Figure 1) having a storage space (see Figure 1) and a door (see Figure 1), the ice maker (10) is provided in the storage space or the door (see Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 9: Uchida teaches an ice maker (10) comprising: a cell (18) having a space in which water is phase-changed into ice by cold (see Figure 2); a first tray (12) configured to define a first portion of the cell (see Figure 2); and a heater (20) configured to supply heat into the ice making cell (18, page 5 of the machine translation), the heater (20) being positioned outside of the cell (see Figure 2), wherein the heater (20) is controlled to provide the heat for a section of the cell (18) in an ice making process, wherein a process for controlling the heater (20) in the ice making process comprises: a basic heating process (pages 6-8 of the machine translation); and an additional heating process that is performed after the basic heating process (pages 6-8 of the machine translation), wherein in a section of the basic heating process (pages 6-8 of the machine translation), a heating amount of the heater is varied (pages 6-8 of the machine translation), wherein the additional heating process comprises: a first additional process (pages 6-8 of the machine translation); a second additional process (pages 6-8 of the machine translation) that is performed after an end of the first additional process (pages 6-8 of the machine translation): and a third additional process that is performed after an end of the second additional process (pages 6-8 of the machine translation), and wherein a heating amount of the heater (20) in the second additional process is smaller than a heating amount of the heater in the first additional process (pages 6-8 of the machine translation), and a heating amount of the heater (20) in the third additional process is smaller than the heating amount of the heater in the second additional process (pages 6-8 of the machine translation).
Uchida fails to teach a second tray configured to define a second portion of the cell.
Son teaches a second tray (12) configured to define a second portion of a cell (space in 113).
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 tray configured to define a second portion of the cell to the structure of Uchida as taught by Son in order to advantageously provide ice cube spheres for clear ice cube balls (see Son, paragraph [0053]).
Regarding Claim 10: Uchida teaches wherein in at least section of the additional heating process, the heating amount of the heater (20) is the same as a minimum heating amount of the heater (20) in the basic heating process, or in at least section of the additional heating process, the heating amount of the heater (20) is the same as a heating amount of the heater in one of a plurality of processes of the basic
heating process (pages 6-7 of the machine translation).
Regarding Claim 11: Uchida teaches wherein the basic heating process includes a plurality of processes, and a heating amount of the heater (20) in a last process among the plurality of processes is greater than a heating amount of the heater in a previous process (pages 6-7 of the machine translation).
Regarding Claim 12: Uchida teaches an ice maker (10) comprising: a cell (18) having a space in which water is phase-changed into ice by cold (see Figure 2F); a first tray (12) configured to define a first portion of the cell (see Figures 1-2); a heater (20) configured to supply heat into the cell (18), the heater (20) being positioned outside of the cell (see Figure 2), wherein the heater (20) is controlled (via control unit 4) to provide the heat for a section of the cell in an ice making process (page 5 of the machine translation); and a heater case (26) in which the heater is installed (page 5 of the machine translation), wherein a process for controlling the heater in the ice making process comprises (page 5 of the machine translation): a basic heating process; and an additional heating process that is performed after the basic heating process, wherein in at least a section of the additional heating process (pages 6-8 of the machine translation), a heating amount of the heater (20) is varied corresponding to a target temperature of a storage chamber (pages 6-8 to the machine translation), a cooling power of the cooler (5, 6, 7) being determined corresponding to the target temperature of the storage chamber (freezer, 2), and wherein a first heating amount of the heater in a case in which the target temperature is a first target temperature is greater than a second heating amount to the heater in a case in which the target temperature is a second target temperature greater than the first target temperature (pages 6-8 to the machine translation).
Uchida fails to teach a second tray configured to define a second portion of the cell.
Son teaches a second tray (12) configured to define a second portion of a cell (space in 113).
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 tray configured to define a second portion of the cell to the structure of Uchida as taught by Son in order to advantageously provide ice cube spheres for clear ice cube balls (see Son, paragraph [0053]).
Regarding Claim 13: Uchida teaches wherein the heating amount of the heater (20) is increased when the target temperature decreases from the second target temperature to the first target temperature, or the heating amount of the heater (20) is reduced when the target temperature increases from the first target temperature to the second target temperature (pages 6-8 of the machine translation).
Regarding Claim 15: Uchida teaches wherein the basic heating process includes a plurality of processes, and a heating amount of the heater (20) in a last process among the plurality of processes is greater than a heating amount of the heater in a previous process (pages 6-7 of the machine translation).
Regarding Claim 16: Uchida teaches wherein in a section of the basic heating process, a heating amount of the heater (20) is varied, and wherein the basic heating process includes a process of operating the heater (20) for a first set time, and the additional heating process includes a process of operating the heater (20) for a second set time, the second set time being longer than the first set time (page 8 of the machine translation).
Regarding Claim 17: Uchida teaches wherein in a section of the basic heating process, a heating amount of the heater (20) is varied, wherein the basic heating process includes a process of operating the heater (20) for a first set time, and wherein the additional heating process includes: a first process of operating the heater (20) for a second set time; and a second process of operating the heater (20) for a third set time after the first process, the third set time being equal to or shorter than the second set time (pages 6-8 of the machine translation).
Regarding Claim 21: Uchida teaches wherein a variation in the heating amount of the heater (20) comprises a variation in an output of the heater (20), and wherein an output of the heater (20) in the second additional process is smaller than an output of the heater (20) in the first additional process, or an output of the heater (20) in the third additional process is smaller than the output of the heater (20) in the second additional process (pages 6-8 of the machine translation).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchida et al. (JPH 09269172 A, machine translation), hereafter referred to as “Uchida” in view of Son et al. (US 2013/0081412 A1), hereafter referred to as “Son," as applied to claim above 12, and further in view of Yoon et al. (US 2019/0219317 A1), hereafter referred to as “Yoon."
Regarding Claim 18: Uchida fails to teach further comprising a cooler
configured to supply the cold into the cell, wherein the heating amount of the heater increases in at least period that a cooling power of the cooler increases, or the heating amount of the heater decreases in at least period that the cooling power of the cooler decreases.
Yoon teaches further comprising a cooler (20) configured to supply cold into a cell (paragraph [0070]); wherein a heating amount of a heater (120) increases in at least period that a cooling power of the cooler (20) increases, or the heating amount of the heater (120) decreases in at least period that the cooling power of the cooler decreases (paragraph [0147]).
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 cooler configured to supply the cold into the cell, wherein the heating amount of the heater increases in at least period that a cooling power of the cooler increases, or the heating amount of the heater decreases in at least period that the cooling power of the cooler decreases to the structure of Uchida modified supra as taught by Yoon in order to advantageously provide automated adjustment for the ice making device for the needed ice making temperature (see Yoon, paragraph [0147]).
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchida et al. (JPH 09269172 A, machine translation), hereafter referred to as “Uchida” in view of Son et al. (US 2013/0081412 A1), hereafter referred to as “Son,” and Yoon et al. (US 2019/0219317 A1), hereafter referred to as “Yoon," as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Knatt (US 2015/0192338 A1).
Regarding Claim 19: Uchida modified supra fails to teach wherein the cooling power of the cooler increases, in at least period that the target temperature of the storage chamber is lowered, in at least period that an operation mode of the storage chamber is changed from a normal mode to a quick cooling mode, in at least period that an output of at least one of a compressor or a fan increases, or in at least period that an opening degree of a refrigerant valve increases.
Knatt teaches a cooling power of a cooler (10) increases, in at least period that a target temperature of a storage chamber (paragraph [0046]) is lowered (to drop temperature, Figures 4 and 8), in at least period that an operation mode of the storage chamber is changed from a normal mode to a quick cooling mode (Figures 4 and 8), in at least period that an output of at least one of a compressor or a fan increases (paragraph [0048]), or in at least period that an opening degree of a refrigerant valve increases (thermostatic or electronic expansion valve, paragraphs [0030], [0031] and [0033]).
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 cooling power of the cooler increases, in at least period that the target temperature of the storage chamber is lowered, in at least period that an operation mode of the storage chamber is changed from a normal mode to a quick cooling mode, in at least period that an output of at least one of a compressor or a fan increases, in at least period that an opening degree of a refrigerant valve increases to the structure of Uchida modified supra as taught by Knatt in order to advantageously provide automated monitoring and power adjustments based on the sensed parameters of the system (see Knatt, paragraph [0048]).
Regarding Claim 20: Uchida modified supra fails to teach wherein the cooling power of the cooler decreases, in at least period that the target temperature of the storage chamber increases, in at least period that an operation mode of the storage chamber is changed from a quick cooling mode to a normal mode, in at least period that an output of at least one of a compressor or a fan decreases, in at least period that an opening degree of a refrigerant valve decreases, in at least period that a door is opened during the ice making process, in at least period that a defrost heater is operated, or in at least period that full ice is detected in an ice bin provided in a door.
Knatt teaches a cooling power of a cooler (10) decreases, in at least period that a target temperature of a storage chamber increases (warmer storage chamber), in at least period that an operation mode of the storage chamber is changed from a quick cooling mode to a normal mode (operating modes), in at least period that an output of at least one of a compressor or a fan decreases (paragraph [0048]), in at least period that an opening degree of a refrigerant valve decreases (thermostatic or electronic expansion valve, paragraphs [0030], [0031] and [0033]), in at least period that a door is opened during the ice making process, in at least period that a defrost heater is operated, or in at least period that full ice is detected in an ice bin provided in a door
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 cooling power of the cooler decreases, in at least period that the target temperature of the storage chamber increases, in at least period that an operation mode of the storage chamber is changed from a quick cooling mode to a normal mode, in at least period that an output of at least one of a compressor or a fan decreases, in at least period that an opening degree of a refrigerant valve decreases, in at least period that a door is opened during the ice making process, in at least period that a defrost heater is operated, or in at least period that full ice is detected in an ice bin provided in a door to the structure of Uchida modified supra as taught by Knatt in order to advantageously provide automated monitoring and power adjustments based on the sensed parameters of the system (see Knatt, paragraph [0048]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Voglewede et al. (US 2006/0086134 A1).
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
/ERIC S RUPPERT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763