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 1-20 are pending. Claims 15-20 are new. Claims 1 and 13-14 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s remarks do not make any specific argument to be rebutted regarding any of the art previously relied upon.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The limitation “coupling” is not disclosed or defined by the originally filed disclosure.
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.
Claim 13 is 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 13 is rejected to because of the following: the limitation “coupling” is undefined and unclear.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 7-12, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cox et al. (EP 2660541 A2), hereafter referred to as “Cox.”
Regarding Claim 1: Cox teaches an ice maker (title) for a household refrigerating appliance (intended use, paragraph [0003]), the ice maker (title) comprising: an ice making tray (50) arranged to rotate about an axis of rotation (abstract, paragraph [0054]); a drive unit (44, 55, 55a) for driving the ice making tray (50) in rotation (abstract, paragraph [0054]), wherein the drive unit (44, 55, 55a) comprises an electric motor (AC or DC motor in 44, paragraph [0054]); and a drive control system (microcontroller, 45, 47a, 47b, 44) configured to control operation of the electric motor (AC or DC motor in 44) depending on an electric current consumption (sensed by sensor 45) of said electric motor (AC or DC motor in 44), wherein the drive control system (microcontroller, 45, 47a, 47b, 44) is further configured to determine the rotational state of the ice making tray (50) by evaluating both the electric current consumption of the electric motor (via 45) and a time-dependent characteristic of the current consumption (see Figures 2E and 3E, paragraph [0057], the sensor 45 monitors current consumed and during each mode of operation, current is used and the behaviors are completed over a time period).
Regarding Claim 2: Cox teaches wherein the drive control system (microcontroller, 45, 47a, 47b, 44) is configured to stop running of the electric motor (AC or DC of motor in 44) depending on the fact that a current behavior is detected for the electric current consumption (sensed by sensor 45) of the electric motor (AC or DC of motor in 44) which is characteristic of a proper moving towards and/or reaching of a defined rotational state (paragraph [0063]) of the ice making tray (50).
Regarding Claim 3: Cox teaches wherein the defined rotational state (paragraph [0063]) is a final rotational state (ice release position) of the ice making tray (50).
Regarding Claim 4: Cox teaches wherein the final rotational state (ice release position) of the ice making tray (50) is determined by mechanical stop limitation (via stopper41) of a movement path of a component (gearing not shown housed in body of 44, paragraph [0054]) arranged in a power transmission path from the electric motor (AC or DC motor in 44) to the ice making tray (50).
Regarding Claim 5: Cox teaches wherein the component (gearing not shown housed in body of 44, paragraph [0054]) is arranged upstream of the ice making tray (50) in a direction of power flow (see Figure 1B).
Regarding Claim 7: Cox teaches wherein a different nominal current behavior of the electric current consumption (sensed by sensor 45) of the electric motor (AC or DC motor in 44) for the proper moving towards and/or reaching of the final rotational state (ice release position) is predetermined in mapping to each of two final rotational states (paragraph [0063]) of the ice making tray (50).
Regarding Claim 8: Cox teaches wherein the drive control system (microcontroller, 45, 47a, 47b, 44) is configured to stop running of the electric motor (AC or DC motor in 44) when the ice making tray (50) is rotated from a horizontal position (paragraph [0063]) in a direction of an emptying rotational state (paragraph [0063]), depending on the fact that a current increase behavior (sensed by sensor 45) characteristic of a proper moving towards and/or reaching of the emptying rotational state (paragraph [0063]) is determined for the electric current consumption (sensed by sensor 45) of the electric motor (AC or DC motor in 44).
Regarding Claim 9: Cox teaches wherein the drive control system (microcontroller, 45, 47a, 47b, 44) is configured to take into account the current increase behavior during such a part of the rotational movement path (by 55, 55a) of the ice making tray (50) on which the ice making tray (50) undergoes a twisting (paragraph [0001]) which ensures or promotes breaking away of pieces of ice from the ice making tray (50, paragraph [0001]) in order to assess whether the current increase behavior characteristic of the proper moving towards (paragraph [0063]) and/or reaching of the emptying rotational state is present (ice release position).
Regarding Claim 10: Cox teaches wherein the drive control system (microcontroller, 45, 47a, 47b, 44) is configured to: determine a current angle of rotation of the electric motor (AC or DC motor in 44) and/or the ice making tray (50) based on the electric current consumption (sensed by sensor 45) of the electric motor (AC or DC motor in 44); and control the electric motor as a function of the current angle of rotation (paragraph [0062]).
Regarding Claim 11: Cox teaches wherein the drive control system (microcontroller, 45, 47a, 47b, 44) is configured to determine the current angle of rotation (based on 47b) on the basis of a cumulative current consumption (detected by sensor 45) of the electric motor (AC or DC motor in 44) within a past time interval (Figures 2E and 3E).
Regarding Claim 12: Cox teaches wherein the drive control system (microcontroller, 45, 47a, 47b, 44) is configured to: determine a rotational speed (paragraph [0054]) of the electric motor (AC or DC motor in 44) and/or the ice making tray (50) for each measuring time (Figures 2E and 3E) based on the electric current consumption (sensed by sensor 45) of the electric motor (AC or DC motor in 44) at a plurality of measuring times within a past time interval (see Figures 2E and 3E); and determine the current angle of rotation on the basis of the rotational speeds (paragraph [0063]).
Claim 15: Cox teaches wherein the time-dependent characteristic of the electric current consumption (sensed by 45) comprises one of a gradient of the electric motor current consumption (see Figures 2E and 3E, paragraph [0057], the sensor 45 monitors current consumed and during each mode of operation, current is used and the behaviors are completed over a time period) over time and the electric motor current consumption over a predetermined time period (see Figures 2E and 3E, paragraph [0057], the sensor 45 monitors current consumed and during each mode of operation, current is used and the behaviors are completed over a time period).
Claim 20: Cox teaches an ice maker (title) for a household refrigerating appliance (intended use, paragraph [0003]), the ice maker (title) comprising: an ice making tray (50) arranged to rotate about an axis of rotation (abstract, paragraph [0054]); a drive unit (44, 55, 55a) for driving the ice making tray in rotation (abstract, paragraph [0054]), wherein the drive unit (44, 55, 55a) comprises an electric motor (AC or DC motor in 44); and a drive control system (microcontroller, 45, 47a, 47b, 44) configured compare a nominal time behavior of a current consumption of the electric motor (via 45) to a measured time behavior of the current consumption of the electric motor for detecting an irregular state of the ice maker (paragraph [0057], the sensor measures the positioning and compares to a predetermined threshold, Figures 2E and 3E; the behaviors of rotating the ice tray needs to be completed over time, thus inherently, time is compared against a threshold state).
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cox et al. (EP 2660541 A2), hereafter referred to as “Cox,” in view of Shoukyuu et al. (US 2005/0138950 A1), hereafter referred to as “Shoukyuu.”
Regarding Claim 6: Cox fails to teach wherein the component is a gear pinion of a reduction gear.
Shoukyuu teaches a component (23, 131) is a gear pinion (131) of a reduction gear (23, paragraph [0029]).
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 component is a gear pinion of a reduction gear to the structure of Cox as taught by Shoukyuu in order to advantageously reduce the rotation of motor controlling the rotation of the shaft (see Shoukyuu, abstract).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cox et al. (EP 2660541 A2), hereafter referred to as “Cox,” in view of Hill et al. (5,992,167), hereafter referred to as “Hill.”
Regarding Claim 13: Cox teaches wherein: the drive unit (44, 55, 55a) is installed in a module housing (housing of body 44) of a drive module (body of 44), which is designed with a coupling piece (54) rotatably mounted on the module housing (see Figures 1A-1B) and in rotary drive connection with the drive unit (see Figure 1B); the coupling piece (54) forms a mechanical interface (see Figure 1B), accessible from outside the drive module (see Figure 1B), for the detachable torsional force-transmitting coupling of the ice making tray (50) to the drive module (paragraph [0054]).
Cox fails to teach the module housing has an opening through which an electrical conductor arrangement connected to the drive unit is led out of the module housing; and at least one of the following measures is taken: the mechanical interface and the opening are formed on opposite sides of the module housing; the conductor arrangement is formed by a circuit board; and/or the module housing has at least one positioning formation on the outside of the module housing near the opening for positioning a control board that is in electrical contact with the conductor arrangement.
Hill teaches a module housing (1) has an opening through which an electrical conductor arrangement (22, 4a, 4b,and harness 23) connected to a drive unit (2) is led out of the module housing (see Figure 1); and at least one of the following measures is taken: a mechanical interface (10) and the opening (slot for 9 into 1 and into 10) are formed on opposite sides (see Figure 1) of the module housing (1); the conductor arrangement (22, 4a, 4b,and harness 23) is formed by a circuit board (4a); and/or the module housing (1) has at least one positioning formation (22, 23) on the outside of the module housing (1) near the opening for positioning a control board (4a) that is in electrical contact with the conductor arrangement (22, 4a, 4b,and harness 23).
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 the module housing has an opening through which an electrical conductor arrangement connected to the drive unit is led out of the module housing; and at least one of the following measures is taken: the mechanical interface and the opening are formed on opposite sides of the module housing; the conductor arrangement is formed by a circuit board; and/or the module housing has at least one positioning formation on the outside of the module housing near the opening for positioning a control board that is in electrical contact with the conductor arrangement to the structure of Cox as taught by Hill in order to advantageously provide electrical power to the motor and controller in the driving unit module housing (see Hill, Column 3, lines 22-45).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cox et al. (EP 2660541 A2), hereafter referred to as “Cox,” in view of Hill et al. (5,992,167), hereafter referred to as “Hill,” as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Baack (US 2017/0023282 A1).
Regarding Claim 14: Cox modified supra fails to teach wherein the at least one positioning formation is a pin.
Baack teaches at least one positioning formation (harness 140) is a pin (paragraphs [0003] and [0012]).
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 at least one positioning formation is a pin to the structure of Cox modified supra as taught by Baack in order to advantageously provide a standard wiring harness for retrofitting a user interface (see Baack, paragraph [0012]).
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cox et al. (EP 2660541 A2), hereafter referred to as “Cox,” in view of Yamamoto et al. (JPH 10288435 A), hereafter referred to as “Yamamoto.”
Claim 16: Cox teaches an ice maker (title) for a household refrigerating appliance (intended use, paragraph [0003]), the ice maker (title) comprising: an ice making tray (50) arranged to rotate about an axis of rotation (abstract, paragraph [0054]); a drive unit (44, 55, 55a) for driving the ice making tray in rotation (abstract, paragraph [0054]), wherein the drive unit (44, 55, 55a) comprises an electric motor (AC or DC motor in 44, paragraph [0054]); and a drive control system (microcontroller, 45, 47a, 47b, 44) configured to control operation of the electric motor (AC or DC motor in 44) depending on an electric current consumption of said electric motor (sensed by 45).
Cox fails to teach wherein the drive control system is configured to detect an irregular state comprising a premature blocking of the ice making tray prior to reaching the emptying rotational state in response to detecting the electric current consumption over a predetermined time period from the start of the rotation process.
Yamamoto teaches a drive control system (angle control means, not shown, SW) is configured to detect an irregular state (ice bin full, standby tray cannot empty) comprising a premature blocking of an ice making tray (13) prior to reaching an emptying rotational state (full rotation upside down to eject ice into the ice storage, page of the machine translation) in response to detecting electric current consumption over a predetermined time period from a start of a rotation process (bottom of page 3 to middle page 4 of the machine translation).
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 drive control system is configured to detect an irregular state comprising a premature blocking of the ice making tray prior to reaching the emptying rotational state in response to detecting the electric current consumption over a predetermined time period from the start of the rotation process to the structure of Cox as taught by Yamamoto in order to advantageously automate rotation of the ice tray for ice collection based on sensed parameters (see Yamamoto, abstract).
Claim 17: Cox modified supra further teaches, wherein the drive control unit (44, 55, 55a, of Cox) is configured to stop operation of the electric motor (AC or DC motor in 44, of Cox) in response to detecting the irregular state (abstract of Yamamoto).
Claim 18: Cox fails to teach wherein the drive control unit is configured to identify the irregular state in response to detecting an increase in the measured motor current over time that deviates from at least one of a predetermined constant gradient or a predetermined varying gradient during rotation of the ice making tray towards the emptying rotational state.
Yamamoto teaches a drive control unit (motor in 11, angle control means, not shown, SW) is configured to identify an irregular state (ice bin full, standby tray cannot empty) in response to detecting an increase in a measured motor current over time (torque applied) that deviates from at least one of a predetermined constant gradient or a predetermined varying gradient during rotation of an ice making tray (13) towards an emptying rotational state (page 2 of the machine translation).
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 drive control unit is configured to identify the irregular state in response to detecting an increase in the measured motor current over time that deviates from at least one of a predetermined constant gradient or a predetermined varying gradient during rotation of the ice making tray towards the emptying rotational state to the structure of Cox as taught by Yamamoto in order to advantageously automate rotation of the ice tray for ice collection based on sensed parameters (see Yamamoto, abstract).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cox et al. (EP 2660541 A2), hereafter referred to as “Cox,” in view of Yamamoto et al. (JPH 10288435 A), hereafter referred to as “Yamamoto,” as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Sekiguchi et al. (JP 2011220629 A, machine translation), hereafter referred to as “Sekiguchi.”
Claim 19: Cox modified supra fails to teach wherein the motor current and the motor voltage are recorded at periodic points in time for determining a current rotation angle.
Sekiguchi teaches a motor current (33) and a motor voltage (46) are recorded at periodic points in time for determining a current rotation angle (32 and 44, Figure 7, via microcomputer 28 commands and signals 27 from sensors, pages 2-3 of the machine translation).
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 motor current and the motor voltage are recorded at periodic points in time for determining a current rotation angle to the structure of Cox modified supra as taught by Sekiguchi in order to advantageously automate rotation of the ice tray for ice collection based on sensed parameters including abnormal load (see Sekiguchi, abstract).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Villani (US 2007/0068189 A1).
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
/ERIC S RUPPERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights