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 1, 4, 9-11, 13-14, and 16-18 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-13 and 19 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 02/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The arguments regarding claims 14-17 and 20 are not persuasive as claim 14 has been amended in a manner that renders the claim indefinite. The manner of assembly is a process claim and claim 14 is an apparatus claim.
The arguments regarding claim 18 are not persuasive. Claim 18 is an apparatus claim and all the structural elements in the apparatus will have portions of their structure in all dimensional directions.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 3 recites “pushing” instead of -- pusher--. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-17 and 19-20 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 1 and 14 are apparatus claims. The newly presented limitation of “…in a state in which the second tray, the second tray case, and the second tray cover are assembled,” to claim 1 and “…in a state in which the tray, the tray case and the tray cover are assembled, “ to claim 14 are process limitations. (See MPEP 2173.05(p) I. and II.).
By virtue of dependency, claims 2-13, 15-17, and 19-20 are also rejected.
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 14-15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bertolini et al. (US 2019/0293335 A1), hereafter referred to as “Bertolini.”
Regarding Claim 14: Bertolini teaches an ice maker (18) comprising: a liquid supply (73) configured to supply a liquid (paragraph [0051]); a tray (30) configured to define a space of a cell (cavities in 31, 32) where the liquid is received and phase-changed to form ice (functional limitation); a heater (72, 72’) configured to provide heat to the cell (paragraph [0050]); a tray case (33) coupled to the tray (30); and a tray cover (69) disposed on the tray (30 when closed), wherein the tray (30) is disposed between the tray case (33) and the tray cover (69), and the tray (30) has a portion exposed to an outside (see Figure 4) in a state in which the tray, the tray case and the tray cover are assembled (this is manner of making, a process limitation in an apparatus claim, none the less the elements are assembled).
Regarding Claim 15: Bertolini teaches wherein the tray (30) includes: a first surface covered by the tray case (see Figure 4); a second surface covered by the tray cover (see Figure 4); and a third surface connecting the first surface and the second surface and defining a thickness of the tray (curvature of cavities 31 and 32), the third surface being exposed to the outside (see Figure 4).
Regarding Claim 20: Bertolini teaches a refrigerator (10) comprising: a cabinet (body of 10) including a storage chamber (11); a door (13) that opens and closes the storage chamber (11); and an ice maker (18) according to claim 14.
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 1-6 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2013/0327074 A1), hereafter referred to as “Lee,” in view of Voglewede et al. (US 2006/0086134 A1), hereafter referred to as “Voglewede.”
Regarding Claim 1: Lee further teaches an ice maker (100) comprising:
a liquid supply (170) configured to supply a liquid (paragraph [0040]);
a first tray (110) having a first portion (113) of a cell (150), the cell being a space where the liquid is received (via 114) and phase-changed to form ice (paragraph [0041]);
a second tray (120, 123) having a second portion (cavity of 123, 125) of the cell (150), the second tray (120, 123) being movable (paragraphs [0044] and [0072]) relative to the first tray (110) so that the first tray (110) and the second tray (120, 123) may contact each other (paragraphs [0044] and [0072]);
a heater (161) configured to provide heat to the cell (paragraph [0040]); a first tray case (111) coupled to the first tray (110); a second tray case (121) positioned at one side of the second tray (120, 123, the case surrounds the perimeter); and a second tray cover (126) positioned at another side of the second tray (120, 123, the cover surrounds the perimeter), wherein the second tray (120, 123) is disposed between the second tray case (121) and the second tray cover (126), and the second tray (120, 123) has a portion exposed to an outside (see Figure 3) in a state in which the second tray, the second tray case, and the second tray cover are assembled (this is manner of making, a process limitation in an apparatus claim, none the less the elements are assembled).
Lee fails to teach a first tray case formed as a separate component to the first tray.
Voglewede teaches a first tray case (120) formed as a separate component to a first tray (130).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a first tray case formed as a separate component to the first tray of Lee as taught by Voglewede in order to advantageously provide the user the ability to remove the tray from the mount/case support (see paragraph [0044] of Voglewede).
Regarding Claim 2: Lee further teaches wherein the second tray (120,123) includes: a first surface covered by the second tray case (121); a second surface covered by the second tray cover (126); and a third surface connecting the first surface and the second surface and defining a thickness of the second tray (see Figure 3), the third surface being exposed to the outside (see Figure 3).
Regarding Claim 3: Lee further teaches wherein the second tray (120 having 123) is made of a flexible material (paragraph [0036]).
Regarding Claim 4: Lee teaches wherein the first tray case (111) is provided with a through-hole through which a portion of a pusher passes (160), the pushing including at least one extension part (paragraph [0032]).
Regarding Claim 5: Lee teaches wherein the first tray case (111) is manufactured as a separate part from a bracket (part 130) and then is coupled to the bracket (see Figure 3).
Regarding Claim 6: Lee teaches wherein the first tray case (111) is integrally formed with a bracket (vertical supports for brackets 130, see Figure 10).
Regarding Claim 19: Lee fails to teach a refrigerator comprising: a cabinet including a storage chamber; a door that opens and closes the storage chamber; and an ice maker according to claim 1.
Voglewede teaches a refrigerator (10) comprising: a cabinet (body of 10) including a storage chamber (12, 16); a door (18) that opens and closes the storage chamber (paragraph [0031]); and an ice maker (20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a refrigerator comprising: a cabinet including a storage chamber; a door that opens and closes the storage chamber; and an ice maker according to claim 1 to the structure of Lee as taught by Voglewede in order to advantageously provide use of the ice maker in a conventional refrigerator (see paragraph [0031] of Voglewede).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Lee,” in view of Voglewede et al. (US 2006/0086134 A1), hereafter referred to as “Voglewede,” as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bertolini et al. (US 2019/029335 A1), hereafter referred to as “Bertolini.”
Regarding Claim 7: Lee modified supra fails to teach further comprising a first tray cover provided with an opening corresponding to a shape of the cell of the first tray.
Bertolini teaches a first tray cover (69) provided with an opening corresponding to a shape of a cell (31, 32) of a first tray (30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a first tray cover provided with an opening corresponding to a shape of the cell of the first tray to the structure of Lee modified supra as taught by Bertolini in order to advantageously provide a seal between with the trays when in contact (see paragraph [0049] of Bertolini).
Regarding Claim 8: Lee modified supra fails to teach further comprising a first tray cover coupled to a surface of the first tray.
Bertolini a first tray cover (69) coupled to a surface of a first tray (30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a first tray cover coupled to a surface of the first tray to the structure of Lee modified supra as taught by Bertolini in order to advantageously provide a seal between with the trays when in contact (see paragraph [0049] of Bertolini).
Claims 9 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Lee,” in view of Voglewede et al. (US 2006/0086134 A1), hereafter referred to as “Voglewede,” as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2009/0019866 A1), hereafter referred to as “Lee ‘866,” and Mogi et al. (JP 2003172564 A, machine translation), hereafter referred to as “Mogi.”
Regarding Claim 9: Lee teaches wherein the heater (161) includes: a first heater (161) configured to provide heat to the cell (113) to separate the ice from the cell (paragraph [0040]).
Lee modified supra fails to teach a second heater configured to provide heat to the cell to make the ice transparent.
Lee ‘866 a heater (146) being a wire-type heater (paragraph [0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a first heater to the structure of Lee modified supra as taught by Lee ‘866 in order to advantageously provide an efficient heater in various shapes for heat transfer (see Lee ‘866, paragraph [0032]).
Mogi teaches a second heater (33) configured to provide heat to a cell to make ice transparent (page 7 of 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 a second heater configured to provide heat to the cell to make the ice transparent, the first heater to the structure of Lee modified supra as taught by Mogi in order to advantageously provide continuous control to the electric heater based on commands (see page 8 of machine translation of Mogi).
Regarding Claim 12: Lee teaches wherein the first heater (161) includes: a first portion (see the straight length of tube of 161); and a second portion (see the u shaped bend tube of 161) positioned in an opposite to the first portion and spaced apart from the first portion by a first distance (see the lengths, the vertical ends, the u turn of 161).
Lee modified supra fails to teach the second heater includes: a third portion; and a fourth portion positioned in an opposite to the third portion and spaced apart from the third portion by a second distance, the first distance being greater than the second distance.
Mogi teaches a second heater (33, see page 7 of machine translation) includes: a third portion; and a fourth portion positioned in an opposite to the third portion and spaced apart from the third portion by a second distance (see bends and straights of 33, Figure 4).
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 second heater includes: a third portion; and a fourth portion positioned in an opposite to the third portion and spaced apart from the third portion by a second distance, the first distance being greater than the second distance to the structure of Lee modified supra as taught by Mogi in order to advantageously provide continuous control to the electric heater based on commands (see page 8 of machine translation of Mogi).
Regarding Claim 13: Lee teaches wherein the cell (150) includes a first cell (113) and a second cell (125), the first cell and the second cell being arranged in an X-axis direction, the first portion of the cell and the second portion of the cell are arranged in a Y-axis direction, and a Z-axis direction is orthogonal to the X-axis direction and the Y-axis direction (see Figure 3), the first portion of the first heater (161) and the second portion of the first heater (161) are arranged in the Z- axis direction and the third portion and the fourth portion are arranged in the Z- axis direction (all structural elements are three dimensional), the first distance being greater than the second distance in a Y-Z axis cutting plane of the cell (see Figure 4 from the rim to hinge).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Lee,” in view of Voglewede et al. (US 2006/0086134 A1), hereafter referred to as “Voglewede,” Lee et al. (US 2009/0019866 A1), hereafter referred to as “Lee ‘866,” Mogi et al. (JP 2003172564 A, machine translation), hereafter referred to as “Mogi,” as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Alvite et al. (US 2004/0026405 A1), hereafter referred to as “Alvite.”
Regarding Claim 10: Lee modified supra fails to teach wherein an output of the first heater is different from an output of the second heater, or an output terminal of the first heater has different shape from an output terminal of the second heater.
Alvite teaches wherein an output of a first heater is different from an output of a second heater (abstract, paragraphs [0032], [0041]).
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 an output of the first heater is different from an output of the second heater to the structure of Lee modified supra as taught by Alvite in order to advantageously provide different levels of heating in various areas (see Alvite, abstract).
Lee modified supra fails to teach an output terminal of the first heater has different shape from an output terminal of the second heater. However, absent evidence of criticality such limitations are mere design choice, change in shape (see MPEP 2144.04 IV. A.-C.). Lee modified supra teaches all of the claimed structure and thus the output terminal of the first heater has different shape from an output terminal of the second heater is not inventive.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2013/0327074 A1), hereafter referred to as “Lee,” in view of Voglewede et al. (US 2006/0086134 A1), hereafter referred to as “Voglewede,” as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Son et al. (US 2013/0014535 A1), hereafter referred to as “Son.”
Regarding Claim 11: Lee modified supra fails to teach further comprising a first heater case in which the first heater is installed, and a second heater case in which the second heater is installed.
Son teaches a first heater case (casing for 151) in which a first heater (151) is installed (see Figure 8), and a second heater case (casing for 152) in which a second heater (152) is installed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a first heater case in which the first heater is installed, and a second heater case in which the second heater is installed to the structure of Lee modified supra as taught by Son in order to advantageously separate heaters to the top and bottom trays (see Figure 8, paragraph [0060], of Son).
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bertolini et al. (US 2019/0293335 A1), here after referred to as “Bertolini” in view of Mogi et al. (JP 2003172564 A, machine translation), hereafter referred to as “Mogi,” and Lee et al. (US 2009/0019866 A1), hereafter referred to as “Lee ‘866.”
Regarding Claim 16: Bertolini teaches wherein the heater (72, 72’) includes: a first heater (72) configured to provide heat to the cell (paragraph [0061]) to separate the ice from the cell (paragraph [0061]); and wherein the first heater (72) includes: a first portion (straight of 72); and a second portion (u bend of 72) positioned opposite to the first portion and spaced apart from the first portion by a first distance (length of straights of 72).
Bertolini fails to teach a second heater configured to provide heat to the cell to make the ice transparent, the second heater includes: a third portion; and a fourth portion positioned opposite to the third portion and spaced apart from the third portion by a second distance.
Mogi teaches a second heater (33) configured to provide heat to a cell to make ice transparent (see page 7 of machine translation), the second heater (33) includes: a third portion; and a fourth portion positioned opposite to the third portion and spaced apart from the third portion by a second distance (see bends and straights of 33, Figure 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a second heater configured to provide heat to the cell to make the ice transparent; the second heater includes: a third portion; and a fourth portion positioned opposite to the third portion and spaced apart from the third portion by a second distance, the first distance being greater than the second distance to the structure of Bertolini as taught by Mogi in order to advantageously provide continuous control to the electric heater based on commands (see page 8 of machine translation of Mogi).
Lee ‘866 a heater (146, paragraph [0032]).
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 heater to the structure of Bertolini modified supra as taught by Lee ‘866 in order to advantageously provide an efficient heater in various shapes for heat transfer (see Lee ‘866, paragraph [0032]).
Regarding Claim 17: Bertolini modified supra teaches wherein the cell (31, 32 of Bertolini) includes a first cell (31 of Bertolini) and a second cell (32 of Bertolini), the first cell and the second cell being arranged in an X-axis direction, the first portion of the first heater (146 of Lee ‘866) and the second portion of the of the first heater are arranged in a Z- axis direction and the third portion and the fourth portion are arranged in the Z- axis direction (all structural elements are three dimensional), and a Z-axis direction is orthogonal to the X-axis direction and the Y-axis direction, the first distance being greater than the second distance in a Y-Z axis cutting plane of the cell (see cavities 31 and 32, rim to hinge of Bertolini).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2013/0327074 A1), hereafter referred to as “Lee,” in view of Mogi et al. (JP 2003172564 A, machine translation), hereafter referred to as “Mogi,” and Lee et al. (US 2009/0019866 A1), hereafter referred to as “Lee ‘866.”
Regarding Claim 18: Lee fails to teach an ice maker (100) comprising: a liquid supply (170) configured to supply a liquid (paragraph [0040]); a tray (110) configured to define a space (113) of a cell (150) where the liquid is received and phase-changed to form ice (paragraph [0040]); a first heater (161) configured to provide heat to the cell to separate the ice from the cell (paragraph [0040]); wherein the first heater (161) includes: a first portion (lengths of 161); and a second portion (u bend of 161) positioned opposite to the first portion and spaced apart (see Figure 3) from the first portion by a first distance (length of 161); wherein the cell (150) includes a first cell (113) and a second cell (125), the first cell (113) and the second cell (125) being arranged in an X-axis direction, the first portion of the first heater (161) and the second portion of the first heater (161) first heater are arranged in a Z- axis direction and the third portion and the fourth portion are arranged in the Z-axis direction (all structural elements are three dimensional), and a Z-axis direction is orthogonal to the X-axis direction and the Y-axis direction (see Figures 3-4), the first distance being greater than the second distance in a Y-Z axis cutting plane of the cell (see Figure 4 from the rim to hinge).
Lee fails to teach a second heater configured to provide heat to the cell to make the ice transparent, and the second heater includes: a third portion; and a fourth portion positioned opposite to the third portion and spaced apart from the third portion by a second distance.
Mogi teaches a second heater (33) configured to provide heat to a cell to make ice transparent (see page 7 of machine translation), the second heater (33) includes: a third portion; and a fourth portion positioned opposite to the third portion and spaced apart from the third portion by a second distance (see bends and straights of 33, Figure 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a second heater configured to provide heat to the cell to make the ice transparent; the second heater includes: a third portion; and a fourth portion positioned opposite to the third portion and spaced apart from the third portion by a second distance, the first distance being greater than the second distance to the structure of Lee as taught by Mogi in order to advantageously provide continuous control to the electric heater based on commands (see page 8 of machine translation of Mogi).
Lee ‘866 a heater (146, paragraph [0032]).
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 first heater to the structure of Lee modified supra as taught by Lee ‘866 in order to advantageously provide an efficient heater in various shapes for heat transfer (see Lee ‘866, paragraph [0032]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hara (4,910,974).
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