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 06/01/2026. Claims 1, 3, 5-9, and 11-22 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 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, 5, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son et al. (US 20130081412 A1, herein after referred to as Son’12), in view of Song et al. (US20200340726A1, herein after referred to as Song), and in further view of An et al. (US 20180187941 A1, herein after referred to as An).
Regarding claim 1, Son’12 teaches an ice maker (ice maker 10 Fig. 3) comprising: a first tray (upper cells 113 Fig. 3) configured to form a first portion (upper portion of the cell illustrated in Fig. 8) of a cell (Fig. 8), the cell being a space (Fig. 8) in which a liquid (disclosed “water” in paragraph [0067] and Fig. 10) is phased-changed into ice (paragraph [0067] and Fig. 10); a second tray (tray body part 14 Fig. 3) configured to form a second portion of the cell (lower portion of the cell illustrated in Fig. 8); and a heater (ice separating heater 18 Fig. 3), the heater being positioned outside the cell (Fig. 3).
Son’12 teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach “the heater is a transparent ice heater configured to supply heat to the cell to make the ice transparent; wherein the transparent ice heater, when supplying the heat to the cell while the ice is being formed, operates to: supply a first amount of heat when the liquid in the space is capable of being phase-changed into the ice in a section of the cell, and supply a second amount of heat, after the first amount of heat is supplied, when the liquid in the space is capable of being phase-changed into the ice in another section of the cell, the second amount of heat being different from the first amount of heat, wherein the transparent ice heater is turned off, after the second amount of heat is supplied, when a turn-off condition of the transparent ice heater is satisfied”.
However, Song teaches a heater (ice making heaters 120 and 130 Fig. 6 correspond to the heater of Son’12) that is a transparent ice heater (paragraphs [0081] and [0096]) configured to supply heat to a cell (ice making cell 112 Fig. 6 corresponds to the cell of Son’12) to make the ice transparent (paragraphs [0081] and [0096]); wherein the transparent ice heater, when supplying the heat to the cell while the ice is being formed (Fig. 23), operates to: supply a first amount of heat (corresponds to the amount of heat generated when 6.8v is supplied to the heaters as disclosed in paragraph [0152] and Fig. 23 during the first period) when the liquid in the space is capable of being phase-changed into the ice in a section of the cell (portions of cell 112 where ice is not growing during the first period Fig. 23), and supply a second amount of heat (corresponds to the amount of heat generated when 6.6v is supplied to the heaters as disclosed in paragraph [0154] and Fig. 23 during the third period), after the first amount of heat is supplied (Fig. 23), when the liquid in the space is capable of being phase-changed into the ice in another section of the cell (portions of cell 112 where ice is not growing during the third period Fig. 23), the second amount of heat being different from the first amount of heat (Fig. 23), wherein the transparent ice heater is turned off (Fig. 23), after the second amount of heat is supplied (Fig. 23), when a turn-off condition of the transparent ice heater is satisfied (paragraph [0154] where the turn-off condition corresponds to when the disclosed period of “90-160 minutes” elapses) to generate transparent ice (paragraphs [0081] and [0096]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of Son’12 to include “the heater is a transparent ice heater configured to supply heat to the cell to make the ice transparent; wherein the transparent ice heater, when supplying the heat to the cell while the ice is being formed, operates to: supply a first amount of heat when the liquid in the space is capable of being phase-changed into the ice in a section of the cell, and supply a second amount of heat, after the first amount of heat is supplied, when the liquid in the space is capable of being phase-changed into the ice in another section of the cell, the second amount of heat being different from the first amount of heat, wherein the transparent ice heater is turned off, after the second amount of heat is supplied, when a turn-off condition of the transparent ice heater is satisfied” in view of the teachings of Song to generate transparent ice.
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein the transparent ice heater is turned on again, after the transparent ice heater is turned off, when a turn-on condition of the transparent ice heater is satisfied such that the transparent ice heater supplies an amount of heat to the cell to separate the ice from the cell”.
However, An teaches wherein a transparent ice heater (heater 130 Fig. 6 corresponds to the transparent ice heater of Song) is turned on again (paragraph [0107]), after the transparent ice heater is turned off (paragraph [0106]), when a turn-on condition of the transparent ice heater (understood to be when T4 elapses Fig. 8 and paragraphs [0106] to [0107]) is satisfied such that the transparent ice heater supplies an amount of heat (corresponds to the amount of heat generated by heater 130 during section T20 as described in paragraph [0107]) to a cell (paragraph [0107] where ice making groove 112 Fig. 4 corresponds to the cell of Son’12) to separate ice from the cell (paragraph [0107]) to reduce cost (paragraph 0064]).
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 transparent ice heater is turned on again, after the transparent ice heater is turned off, when a turn-on condition of the transparent ice heater is satisfied such that the transparent ice heater supplies an amount of heat to the cell to separate the ice from the cell” in view of the teachings of Ito to reduce cost.
Regarding claim 5, the combined teachings teach comprising a heater case (rotation shaft 131 Figs. 6-7 of Song) where the transparent ice heater is installed (Figs. 6-7 of Song).
Regarding claim 16, Son’12 teaches an ice maker (ice maker 10 Fig. 3) comprising: a tray (upper cells 113 and tray body 14 Fig. 3) configured to form a cell (corresponds to the cell illustrated in Fig. 8), the cell being a space (Fig. 8) in which a liquid (disclosed “water” in paragraph [0067] and Fig. 10) is phased-changed into ice (paragraph [0067] and Fig. 10); and a heater (ice separating heater 18 Fig. 3), the heater being positioned outside the cell (Fig. 3).
Son’12 teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach “the heater is a transparent ice heater configured to supply heat to the cell to make the ice transparent; wherein the transparent ice heater, when supplying the heat to the cell while the ice is being formed, operates to: supply a first amount of heat when the liquid in the space is capable of being phase-changed into the ice in a section of the cell, and supply a second amount of heat, after the first amount of heat is supplied, when the liquid in the space is capable of being phase-changed into the ice in another section of the cell, the second amount of heat being different from the first amount of heat”.
However, Song teaches a heater (ice making heaters 120 and 130 Fig. 6 correspond to the heater of Son’12) that is a transparent ice heater (paragraphs [0081] and [0096]) configured to supply heat to a cell (ice making cell 112 Fig. 6 corresponds to the cell of Son’12) to make the ice transparent (paragraphs [0081] and [0096]); wherein the ice transparent heater, when supplying the heat to the cell while the ice is being formed (Fig. 23), operates to: supply a first amount of heat (corresponds to the amount of heat generated when 6.8v is supplied to the heaters as disclosed in paragraph [0152] and Fig. 23 during the first period) when the liquid in the space is capable of being phase-changed into the ice in a section of the cell (portions of cell 112 where ice is not growing during the first period Fig. 23), and supply a second amount of heat (corresponds to the amount of heat generated when 6.6v is supplied to the heaters as disclosed in paragraph [0154] and Fig. 23 during the third period), after the first amount of heat is supplied (Fig. 23), when the liquid in the space is capable of being phase-changed into the ice in another section of the cell (portions of cell 112 where ice is not growing during the third period Fig. 23), the second amount of heat being different from the first amount of heat (Fig. 23) to generate transparent ice.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of Son’12 to include “the heater is a transparent ice heater configured to supply heat to the cell to make the ice transparent; wherein the transparent ice heater, when supplying the heat to the cell while the ice is being formed, operates to: supply a first amount of heat when the liquid in the space is capable of being phase-changed into the ice in a section of the cell, and supply a second amount of heat, after the first amount of heat is supplied, when the liquid in the space is capable of being phase-changed into the ice in another section of the cell, the second amount of heat being different from the first amount of heat” in view of the teachings of Song to generate transparent ice.
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein the transparent ice heater supplies heat to the cell to separate the ice from the cell, after the second amount of heat is supplied”.
However, An teaches wherein a transparent ice heater (heater 130 Fig. 6 corresponds to the transparent ice heater of Song) supplies heat to a cell (paragraph [0107] where ice making groove 112 Fig. 4 corresponds to the cell of Son’12) to separate ice from the cell (paragraph [0107]), after a second amount of heat (paragraph [0105] where the amount of heat applied during T3 corresponds to the second amount of Song) is supplied (paragraph [0105]) to reduce cost (paragraph 0064]).
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 transparent ice heater supplies heat to the cell to separate the ice from the cell, after the second amount of heat is supplied” in view of the teachings of An to reduce cost.
Claims 3, 12-15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son’12 in view of Song and An as applied to claims 1 and 16 above, and further in view of Son et al. (US20130014536A1, herein after referred to as Son).
Regarding claim 3, the combined teachings teach wherein the second tray moves relative to the first tray after the amount of heat is supplied (paragraph [0068] of Son’12).
Son.
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “the second tray moves relative to the first tray by a driving motor”.
However, Son teaches a second tray (tray body 123 Fig. 3 corresponds to the second tray of Son’12) moves relative to a first tray (Figs. 4-5 where recess part 113 corresponds to the first tray of Son’12) by a driving motor (driving unit 140 Fig. 3 and paragraph [0068]) to generate a rotation power (paragraph [0100]).
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 second tray moves relative to the first tray by a driving motor” in view of the teachings of Son to generate a rotation power.
Regarding claim 12, the combined teachings teach further comprising a first tray case (tray part 112 Fig. 3 of Son) integrally formed with a bracket (mounting part 111 Fig. 3 of Son), a portion of the ice maker (portion of ice maker 100 Fig. 3 of Son where ice maker 100 corresponds to the ice maker of Son’12) being provided outside the bracket (Fig. 3 of Son).
Regarding claim 13, the combined teachings teach a first tray case (tray part 112 Fig. 3 of Son) and a bracket (mounting part 111 Fig. 3 of Son), a portion of the ice maker (portion of ice maker 100 Fig. 3 of Son where ice maker 100 corresponds to the ice maker of Son’12) being provided outside the bracket (Fig. 3 of Son).
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “the first tray case manufactured as a separate part from the bracket and coupled to the bracket”.
However, Applicant has not disclosed that having “the first tray case manufactured as a separate part from the bracket and coupled to the bracket” does anything more than produce the predictable result of providing means to mount the ice maker. 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 means to mount the ice maker.
Regarding claim 14, the combined teachings teach further comprising a second tray cover (upper frame 13 Fig. 3 of Son’12) formed as a separate component (Fig. 3 of Son’12) to the second tray (Fig. 3 of Son’12) and disposed at one side of the second tray (upper side of tray body 14 Fig. 3 of Son’12).
Regarding claims 15 and 20, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “a refrigerator comprising: a storage chamber configured to store food; a door that opens and closes the storage chamber”.
However, Son teaches a refrigerator (refrigerator 1 Fig. 2) comprising: a storage chamber (refrigerating compartment 3 Fig. 2) configured to store food (paragraph [0003]); a door (refrigerating compartment door 5 Fig. 2) that opens and closes the storage chamber (Figs. 1-2) to store food in a refrigerated or frozen state (paragraph [0003]).
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 refrigerator comprising: a storage chamber configured to store food; a door that opens and closes the storage chamber” in view of the teachings of Son to store food in a refrigerated or frozen state.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son’12 in view of Song, An, and Son as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Ito et al. (JP2005326035A, herein after referred to as Ito).
Regarding claim 6, the combined teachings teach further comprising; a pusher (lower ejecting pins 20 Fig. 3 of Son’12) configured to separate the ice from the cell (paragraph [0064] of Son’12); and a tray case (lower frame 15 Fig. 3 of Son’12) formed as a separate component (Fig. 3 of Son’12) to the second tray (Fig. 3 of Son’12) and disposed at one side of the second tray (bottom side of tray body 14 Fig. 3 of Son’12), wherein the tray case is provided with a hole (Fig. 8 of Son’12), and wherein the pusher includes at least one column (body portion of lower ejecting pin 20 Fig. 9 of Son’12), the column having an end (Figs. 8-9 of Son’12) with at least an edge (Figs. 8-9 of Son’12).
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein the tray case is provided with the hole through which a portion of the pusher passes”.
However, Ito teaches wherein a tray case (ice tray 1A Fig. 6 corresponds to the tray case of Son’12) is provided with a hole (Fig. 6) through which a portion of a pusher (Fig. 6 where plunger 5A corresponds to the pusher of Son’12) passes (Fig. 6) to easily release the ice without cracking or chipping (paragraph [0018]).
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 tray case is provided with the hole through which a portion of the pusher passes” in view of the teachings of Ito to easily release the ice without cracking or chipping.
Regarding claim 8, the combined teachings teach further comprising a bracket (rotating housing 13 Fig. 5 of Ito) which a portion of the ice maker (the entirety of the ice maker Fig. 5 of Ito where the illustrated ice maker corresponds to the ice maker of Son’12) is provided inside (Fig. 5 of Ito), wherein the pusher is installed on the bracket (Fig. 5 of Ito).
Claims 7, 9, 11, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son’12 in view of Song, An, and Son as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Boarman (US 20140165598 A1, herein after referred to as Boarman).
Regarding claim 7, the combined teachings teach a pusher (ejecting pins assembly 19 Fig. 3 of Son’12) configured to separate the ice from the cell (paragraph [0063] of Son’12), wherein the pusher includes at least one column (body portion of ejecting pin 192 Fig. 3 of Son’12), the column having an end (Fig. 3 of Son’12) with at least an edge (Fig. 3 of Son’12).
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “further comprising: a tray case formed as a separate component to the first tray and disposed at one side of the first tray; and wherein the pusher is connected to the tray case and a portion of the pusher passes through the tray case to separate the ice from the cell”.
However, Boarman teaches further comprising: a tray case (outer shell 500 Fig. 29) formed as a separate component to a first tray (Fig. 29 and paragraph [00119] where chill ring 508 corresponds to the first tray of Son’12) and disposed at one side of the first tray (upper side of chill ring 508 Figs. 29 and 35); and wherein a pusher (ejector pin 475 Figs. 29-30 corresponds to the pusher of Son’12) is connected to the tray case (Figs. 29-30) and a portion of the pusher (lower portion of ejector pin 475 Figs. 29-30) passes through the tray case to separate ice from a cell (Figs. 26 and 29-30 where unitary mold cavity 440 corresponds to the cell of Son).
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 tray case formed as a separate component to the first tray and disposed at one side of the first tray; and wherein the pusher is connected to the tray case and a portion of the pusher passes through the tray case to separate the ice from the cell” in view of the teachings of Boarman to protect the tray from any accidental damage.
Regarding claim 9, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “further comprising a first tray cover formed as a separate component to the first tray and disposed at one side of the first tray, wherein the first tray includes a contact surface in contact with the second tray and the first tray cover includes an opening formed to correspond to a shape of the cell of the first tray”.
However, Boarman teaches a first tray cover (chill ring cover 504 Fig. 35) formed as a separate component to a first tray (Fig. 35 where chill ring 508 corresponds to the first tray of Son’12) and disposed at one side of the first tray (upper side of chill ring 508 Fig. 35), wherein the first tray includes a contact surface (see below annotated Fig. 26 of Boarman) in contact with a second tray (see below annotated Fig. 26 of Boarman) and the first tray cover includes an opening (dome-shaped forms 530 Fig. 35) formed to correspond to a shape of a cell (Figs. 26 and 35 with paragraph [0122] where unitary mold cavity 440 corresponds to the cell of Son’12) of the first tray to protect and insulate the first tray (paragraphs [0119] and [0122]).
PNG
media_image1.png
546
646
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 formed as a separate component to the first tray and disposed at one side of the first tray, wherein the first tray includes a contact surface in contact with the second tray and the first tray cover includes an opening formed to correspond to a shape of the cell of the first tray” in view of the teachings of Boarman to protect and insulate the first tray.
Regarding claim 11, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “further comprising a first tray case formed as a separate component to the first tray and disposed at one side of the first tray”.
However, Boarman teaches further comprising a first tray case (outer shell 500 Fig. 29) formed as a separate component to a first tray (Fig. 29 and paragraph [00119] where chill ring 508 corresponds to the first tray of Son’12) and disposed at one side of the first tray (upper side of chill ring 508 Figs. 29 and 35).
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 case formed as a separate component to the first tray and disposed at one side of the first tray” in view of the teachings of Boarman to protect the tray from any accidental damage.
Regarding claim 22, the combined teachings teach a first tray case (outer shell 500 Fig. 29 of Boarman) formed as a separate component to the first tray (Fig. 29 and paragraph [00119] of Boarman) and disposed at one side of the first tray (upper side of chill ring 508 Figs. 29 and 35 of Boarman).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son’12 in view of Song and An as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Yoshikazu (JPH06273014A).
Regarding claim 17, the combined teachings teach wherein the tray moves to separate the ice from the cell (step S17 Fig. 10 of Son’12).
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “the tray moves by a driving motor after the transparent ice heater supplies heat to the cell”.
However, Yoshikazu teaches a tray (the assembly illustrated in Fig. 4 corresponds to the tray of Son’12) moves by a driving motor (motor 4 Fig. 2 and paragraph [0016]) after a transparent ice heater (paragraphs [0015] to [0016] where lid heater 20 Fig. 3 corresponds to the transparent ice heater of Song) supplies heat to the cell (paragraph [0015]) to remove the generated ice (paragraph [0016]).
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 tray moves by a driving motor after the transparent ice heater supplies heat to the cell” in view of the teachings of Yoshikazu to remove the generated ice.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son’12 in view of Song and An as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Ito.
Regarding claim 18, the combined teachings teach further comprising a pusher (lower ejecting pins 20 Fig. 3 of Son’12) having at least one column (body portion of lower ejecting pin 20 Fig. 9 of Son’12) and configured to separate the ice from the cell (paragraph [0064] of Son’12), the column having an end (Fig. 3 of Son’12) with at least an edge (Fig. 3 of Son’12).
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “a bracket which a portion of the ice maker is provided inside or outside, wherein the bracket is formed as a separate component to the tray, and wherein the pusher is installed on the bracket”.
However, Ito teaches a bracket (rotating housing 13 Fig. 5) which a portion of an ice maker (the entirety of the ice maker in Fig. 5 where the illustrated ice maker corresponds to the ice maker of Son’12) is provided inside (Fig. 5), wherein the bracket is formed as a separate component to a tray (Fig. 5 where ice trays 1 and 1A correspond to the tray of Son’12), and wherein a pusher (plunger 5 Fig. 5A corresponds to the pusher of Son’12) is installed on the bracket (Fig. 5) to easily release the ice without cracking or chipping (paragraph [0018]).
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 bracket which a portion of the ice maker is provided inside or outside, wherein the bracket is formed as a separate component to the tray, and wherein the pusher is installed on the bracket” in view of the teachings of Ito to easily release the ice without cracking or chipping.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son’12 in view of Song, An, and Ito as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Boarman.
Regarding claim 19, the combined teachings teach wherein the tray comprises: a first tray (upper cells 113 Fig. 3 of Son’12) configured to form a first portion (upper portion of the cell illustrated in Fig. 8 of Son’12) of a cell (Fig. 8 of Son’12), the cell being a space (Fig. 8 of Son’12) in which a liquid (disclosed “water” in paragraph [0067] and Fig. 10 of Son’12) is phased-changed into ice (paragraph [0067] and Fig. 10 of Son’12); and a second tray (tray body part 14 Fig. 3 of Son’12) configured to form a second portion of the cell (lower portion of the cell illustrated in Fig. 8 of Son’12) and movable with respect to the first tray (step S17 Fig. 10 of Son’12); wherein the ice maker further comprises: an additional pusher (ejecting pins assembly 19 Fig. 3 of Son’12) having at least one column (body portion of ejecting pin 192 Fig. 3 of Son’12) and configured to separate the ice from the cell (paragraph [0063] of Son’12), the column of the additional pusher having an end (Fig. 3 of Son’12) with at least an edge (Fig. 3 of Son’12); and the additional pusher (Fig. 6 of Ito where plunger 5 corresponds to the additional pusher of Son’12) passes through the tray case (Fig. 6 of Ito where ice tray 1 Fig. 6 corresponds to the tray case of Son’12) to separate the ice from the cell (Fig. 6 of Ito).
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “a tray case coupled to a surface of the first tray, and wherein the additional pusher is connected to the tray case”.
However, Boarman teaches a tray case (outer shell 500 Fig. 29) coupled to a surface (outer shell 500 is coupled to a top surface of chill ring 508 via chill ring cover 504 Figs. 29-30) of a first tray (Fig. 29 and paragraph [00119] where chill ring 508 corresponds to the first tray of Son’12), and wherein an additional pusher (ejector pin 475 Figs. 29-30 corresponds to the additional pusher of Son’12) is connected to the tray case (Figs. 29-30).
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 tray case coupled to a surface of the first tray, and wherein the additional pusher is connected to the tray case” in view of the teachings of Boarman to protect the tray from any accidental damage.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son’12 in view of Song and An as applied to claim above, and further in view of Boarman.
Regarding claim 21, the combined teachings teach comprising a pusher (ejecting pins assembly 19 Fig. 3 of Son’12) configured to separate the ice from the cell (paragraph [0063] of Son’12), wherein the pusher includes at least one column (body portion of ejecting pin 192 Fig. 3 of Son’12), the column having an end (Fig. 3 of Son’12) with at least an edge (Fig. 3 of Son’12).
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein the heater case is provided with a hole through which the pusher passes”.
However, Boarman teaches a heater case (chill ring cover 504 Fig. 35 corresponds to the heater case of Song) is provided with a hole (water inlet aperture 505 Fig. 35) through which a pusher (ejector pin 475 corresponds to the pusher of Son’12) passes (Figs. 29-30) to allow for water to flow inside the cell (paragraph [0122]).
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 heater case is provided with a hole through which the pusher passes” in view of the teachings of Boarman to allow for water to flow inside the cell.
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.
Applicant's arguments filed on 06/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on pages 11-15 that the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it is noted that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the Applicant' s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392; 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
The Examiner has met all requirements establishing a prima facie case: all factual findings required by Graham were supplied in the previous and present Actions; the references are related art, and Applicant has supplied no evidence that there is no reasonable expectation of success; all claim limitations were met in the previous and present Actions, and Applicant has merely made the allegation that the limitations are not met, and thus has not provided any evidence or argument directed to how the identified elements in the first action fail to meet the claimed limitations or to how the identified elements are otherwise distinguishable from the claimed limitations. Neither has Applicant supplied any evidence or argument addressing any failure of Examiner's application of the Teaching-Suggestion-Motivation Test (TSM) test, pursuant to current governing law (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007)).
Further, motivation was provided in all present and previous combinations of references. Although a specific motivation may not have been explicitly stated within one of the references, the motivation was not improper, and provided in accordance with the TMS Test. As such, Examiner's use of these facts as a motivation statement is in compliance with the requirements of the TSM test, since the Teaching-Suggestion-Motivation (TSM) test should be flexibly applied and the teaching, suggestion, or motivation need not be written within the reference. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (US 2007); Ortho-McNeil Pharm., Inc. v. Mylan Lab., Inc., 520 F.3d 1358, 86 U.S.P.Q.2d 1196 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Ex Parte Kubin, 83 USPQ2d 1410 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 2007).
It is also noted that prior art is not limited just to the references being applied, but includes the understanding of one of ordinary skill in the art. The prior art reference (or references when combined) need not teach or suggest all the claim limitations, however, Office personnel must explain why the difference(s) between the prior art and the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. The "mere existence of differences between the prior art and an invention does not establish the invention' s nonobviousness”. The gap between the prior art and the claimed invention may not be "so great as to render the [claim] nonobvious to one reasonably skilled in the art”. In determining obviousness, neither the particular motivation to make the claimed invention nor the problem the inventor is solving controls. The proper analysis is whether the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art after consideration of all the facts, see MPEP 2141 (III). Further a person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." "[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle." Office personnel may also take into account "the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ”, see MPEP 2141.03 (I).
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejections are maintained.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on pages 13-14 that Song teaches away from operating “heater 120 during ice separation”, Examiner disagrees.
Applicant is reminded that a reference "teaches away" when it states that something cannot be done. See In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553, 31 USPQ2d 1130, 1130 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Contrary to Applicant’s assertion, Song’s disclosure in paragraph [0018] which states that “a rotation shaft connected to the heating rod and configured to extend to cross an upper part of the ice making container and rotate the heating rod to separate the heating rod from the ice making container. Accordingly, ice making and ice separating processes may be performed together” is not an indication that a heater cannot be used to separate the generated ice. Rather, Song is merely stating that the heater can function as both a heater and an ice ejector (see paragraph [0098]). Song does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed which is the use of a heater during ice separation.
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejections are maintained.
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