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 1-2, 4, 6-16, 18, and 20 are pending. Claims 1, 6, and 15 have been amended. Claims 3, 5, 17, and 19 have been canceled. By virtue of dependency, all dependent claims are also amended in scope.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-2, 4, 6-16, 18, and 20 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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the elevated corners of claim 13 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 4 and 18 are 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 originally filed disclosure in paragraph [0038] of the written specification discloses that the embodiment of the resilient shield is positioned proximate corners are part of an ALTERNATIVE embodiment from recited amended claim 1 which has the resilient shield extending around the entire perimeter. Claim 1 and claim 4 pertain to two alternative embodiments which the specification clearly states. As the two separate embodiments cannot be combined, the limitation of claim 4 dependent on claim 1 is new matter. The same issue pertains to claims 15 and 18 in the same manner (claim 15 recites that the resilient shield extends around the perimeter and claim 18 pertains to the proximate corners, the same arguments made above are incorporated herein).
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 4 and 18 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.
Claims 4 and 18 are unclear and indefinite. Dependent claims 4 and 18 recite that the resilient shield is proximate corners while independent claims 1 and 15 recite that the resilient shield extends around the entire perimeter. These claim limitations are structurally different. It is unclear how the same resilient shield can be located/positioned in different locations of the most comprehensive claims of the claim sets (claims 4 and 18, respectfully).
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 1-2, 4, 7-9, 12-13, 15-16, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Boarman et al. (US 2014/0165605 A1), hereafter referred to as “Boarman.”
Regarding Claim 1: Boarman teaches a refrigerator appliance (50) defining a vertical direction, a lateral direction, and a transverse direction (see Figure 1), comprising: a cabinet (paragraph [0052]) defining a chilled chamber (60); a door (56, 58) rotatably mounted to the cabinet (see Figure 2) and rotatable between a closed position (see Figures 1-2) enclosing the chilled chamber (60) and an open position providing access to the chilled chamber (see Figures 1-2); and an ice making assembly (52) mounted to the door (see Figure 2) of the refrigerator appliance (50, paragraph [0052]), the ice making assembly (52) comprising: an icemaker frame (110) mounted to the door (see Figure 2); an ice tray (70) rotatably (paragraph [0062]) mounted to the icemaker frame (110) and defining a plurality of mold cavities (96) for receiving water that is formed into ice (paragraph [0058]); a drive motor (112, 114) operably coupled to the ice tray (70) to rotate the ice tray (paragraph [0057]) and harvest (paragraph [0061]) the ice (98) formed within the plurality of mold cavities (96); and a resilient splash shield (82) positioned between the icemaker frame (110) and the ice tray (70) to prevent splashing (paragraph [0065]) from the plurality of mold cavities (96), wherein the resilient splash shield (82) is positioned inside an upper lip (see 82 overlapping inside of extending edge 132 of ice tray plate 76 of ice tray 70, see Figure 6) of the ice tray (70), defines an overlap distance into the ice tray (70), and extends around an entire perimeter (82 surrounds 78 of 76 of tray 70) of the ice tray (70, paragraph [0058]).
Regarding Claim 2: Boarman teaches wherein the resilient splash shield (82) is mounted to at least one of the icemaker frame or the ice tray (82 surrounds 78 of 76 of tray 70) and extends into or over the ice tray (70, paragraph [0058]).
Regarding Claim 4: Boarman teaches wherein the resilient splash shield (82) is positioned proximate corners of the ice tray (82 surrounds 78 of 76 of tray 70, paragraph [0058]).
Regarding Claim 7: Boarman teaches wherein the resilient splash shield (82) is positioned above the ice tray (82 surrounds 78 of 76 of tray 70, paragraph [0058]) when the ice tray (70) is in an ice forming position (see Figures 7A-7B).
Regarding Claim 8: Boarman teaches wherein the resilient splash shield (82) is oriented downward along the vertical direction (see Figure 6).
Regarding Claim 9: Boarman teaches wherein the resilient splash shield (82) is formed from an elastomeric material (polypropylene, paragraph [0065], as evidenced by Alshoubagy et al. (paragraph [0041], US 2017/0299244 A1)).
Regarding Claim 12: Boarman teaches wherein the ice tray (70) is twistable (paragraph [0057]) to facilitate harvest of ice from within the plurality of mold cavities (96).
Regarding Claim 13: Boarman teaches wherein the ice tray (70) defines elevated corners (see Figure 4) that extend from a top surface of the ice tray (82 surrounds 78 of 76 of tray 70, paragraph [0058]).
Regarding Claim 15: Boarman teaches an ice making assembly (52) mounted to a door (56,58) of a refrigerator appliance (50), the ice making assembly (52) comprising: an icemaker frame (110) mounted to the door (see Figure 2); an ice tray (70) rotatably (paragraph [0062]) mounted to the icemaker frame (110) and defining a plurality of mold cavities (96) for receiving water that is formed into ice (paragraph [0058]); a drive motor (112, 114) operably coupled to the ice tray (70) to rotate the ice tray (70, paragraph [0057]) and harvest (paragraph [0061]) the ice (98) formed within the plurality of mold cavities (96); and a resilient splash shield (82) positioned between the icemaker frame (110) and the ice tray (70) to prevent splashing (paragraph [0058]) from the plurality of mold cavities (96), wherein the resilient splash shield (82) is positioned inside an upper lip (extending edges 132, paragraph [0065]) of the ice tray (76), defines an overlap distance into the ice tray (see 82 overlapping inside of extending edge 132 of ice tray plate 76 of ice tray 70, see Figure 6), and extends around an entire perimeter of the ice tray (82 surrounds 78 of 76 of tray 70, paragraph [0058]).
Regarding Claim 16: Boarman teaches wherein the resilient splash shield (82) is mounted to at least one of the icemaker frame or the ice tray (70) and extends into or over the ice tray (82 surrounds 78 of 76 of tray 70, paragraph [0058]).
Regarding Claim 18: Boarman teaches wherein the resilient splash shield (82) is positioned proximate corners of the ice tray (82 surrounds 78 of 76 of tray 70, paragraph [0058]).
Regarding Claim 20: Boarman teaches wherein the resilient splash shield (82) is formed from an elastomeric material (polypropylene, paragraph [0065], as evidenced by Alshoubagy et al. (paragraph [0041], US 2017/0299244 A1)).
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 Boarman et al. (US 2014/0165605 A1), hereafter referred to as “Boarman.”
Regarding Claim 6: Boarman fails to teach wherein the overlap distance is greater than 5 millimeters.
However, Boarman teaches a distance in the overlap (see 82 over edge 132 of ice tray plate 76, of ice tray 70 paragraph [0065]). Thus, the distance of the overlap is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is a change of ice tray size, proportions.
Therefore, since the general condition of the claim is disclosed by the prior art reference, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide wherein the overlap distance is greater than 5 millimeters. Furthermore, the ratios and ranges is recognized by the Examiner to be a very broad range, and a range that would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art would before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2144.04 IV A and 2144.05 I, II A and B.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boarman et al. (US 2014/0165605 A1), hereafter referred to as “Boarman,” in view of Prum et al. (US 2017/0266849 A1), hereafter referred to as “Prum.”
Regarding Claim 10: Boarman fails to teach wherein the resilient splash shield is formed from silicone.
Prum teaches wherein an ice tray (paragraph [0010]) is formed from silicone (paragraph [0010]).
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 resilient splash shield is formed from silicone to the structure of Boarman as taught by Prum in order to advantageously use known flexible materials for easier release of ice cubes (see Prum, paragraph [0010]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boarman et al. (US 2014/0165605 A1), hereafter referred to as “Boarman,” in view of Hayashi et al. (JPH 0611228 A, machine translation), hereafter referred to as “Hayashi.”
Regarding Claim 11: Boarman fails to teach wherein the resilient splash shield is overmolded on the icemaker frame or the ice tray.
Hayashi teaches wherein a resilient splash shield (22a) is overmolded on an icemaker frame or an ice tray (11).
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 resilient splash shield is overmolded on the icemaker frame or the ice tray to the structure of Boarman as taught by Hayashi in order to advantageously make elements integral. Absent evidence of criticality, making structure integral is obvious and would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art would before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2144.04 V B.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boarman et al. (US 2014/0165605 A1), hereafter referred to as “Boarman,” in view of Lee et al. (US 2005/0183441 A1), hereafter referred to as “Lee.”
Regarding Claim 14: Boarman fails to teach wherein the refrigerator appliance is a side-by-side refrigerator appliance and the chilled chamber is a freezer chamber.
Lee teaches a refrigerator appliance (100) is a side-by-side refrigerator appliance (see Figure 1) and a chilled chamber is a freezer chamber (1, paragraph [0034]).
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 refrigerator appliance is a side-by-side refrigerator appliance and the chilled chamber is a freezer chamber to the structure of Boarman as taught by Lee in order to advantageously provide known types of refrigerator configurations (see Lee, paragraph [0006]). Absent evidence of criticality, changes in design is obvious and would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art would before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2144.04 IV A.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lee et al. (US 2010/0031688 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