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, 6-16, and 20 are pending. Claims 1, 6, and 15 have been amended. Claims 3-5, and 17-19 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, 6-16, 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.
Applicant's arguments filed 04/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant does not proffer any evidence of criticality to the length of any of the structure recited in the pending claims. Absent evidence of criticality, the new limitations are obvious and not patentable. See MPEP 2144.04. IV. A.
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 1-2, 6-16, and 20 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 and 15 are unclear and indefinite. Claims 1 and 15 recite that the resilient splash shield is “longer proximate corners of the ice tray.”
The term “proximate” in claims 1 and 15 is a relative term which render the claims indefinite. The term “proximate” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
It is also unclear how or what portion of the shield is longer, as the shield must already overlap the lip of the ice tray and thus some portion of the shield is inherently longer than the lip of the ice tray. Further, the resilient splash shield is a three dimensional structure. The claims fail to recite what portion is longer, or in which direction the length is being considered, or relative to what other structure (any portion of the shield or to the ice tray?). For these aforementioned reasons, all of the pending claims are unclear and indefinite.
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 1-2, 6-9, 12-13, 15-16, and 20 are 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 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), extends around an entire perimeter (82 surrounds 78 of 76 of tray 70) of the ice tray (70, paragraph [0058]), and is longer proximate corners of the ice tray (82 already overlaps the lip of tray 70, thus is longer).
Therefore, since the general condition of the claim is disclosed by the prior art reference, it is not inventive to change length and/or protrusion of the structure. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have changed the length and/or dimensions of the resilient splash shield in order to advantageously provide varying lengths of the components for varying configurations. Furthermore, absent evidence of criticality, change in length is merely design choice 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. and B.
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 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.
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 Alshourbagy 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), extends around an entire perimeter of the ice tray (82 surrounds 78 of 76 of tray 70, paragraph [0058]), and is longer proximate corners of the ice tray (82 already overlaps the lip of tray 70, thus is longer).
Therefore, since the general condition of the claim is disclosed by the prior art reference, it is not inventive to change length and/or protrusion of the structure. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have changed the length and/or dimensions of the resilient splash shield in order to advantageously provide varying lengths of the components for varying configurations. Furthermore, absent evidence of criticality, change in length is merely design choice 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. and B.
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 20: Boarman teaches wherein the resilient splash shield (82) is formed from an elastomeric material (polypropylene, paragraph [0065], as evidenced by Alshourbagy et al. (paragraph [0041], US 2017/0299244 A1)).
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).
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