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 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 1-20 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: claims 1, 15, and 18 have “wherein clauses” which are contingent/optional claim language for method steps that appear to need to be programmed into a controller or some type of automated element to control all of the sensors/heaters in the independent claims. The originally filed specification discloses a controller. Absent definitive structure and positive limitation for specific step programmed to the definitive structure, the claims are indefinite. For purposes of examination, the wherein clauses given broadest reasonable interpretation and are contingent. See MPEP 2111.04.
By virtue of dependency, the dependent claims are also rejected.
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, 8-9, 15-16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2015/0192346 A1), hereafter referred to as “Lee,” in view of Lee (KR 20110056025 A, machine translation), hereafter referred to as “Lee ‘025.”
Regarding Claim 1: Lee teaches a refrigerator (abstract) comprising: a storage chamber (paragraph [0084]); a cooler (see Figure 4) configured to supply cold air to the storage chamber (via fan 144), the cooler (see Figure 4) including a compressor (112) configured to compress a refrigerant (paragraph [0057]); and an ice maker (190) comprising: a tray (212) configured to define a cell (cavities) that is a space in which a liquid (water) introduced into the space is to phase-change into ice by the cold air (evaporator 122 and fan 144, paragraph [0061]); and a heater (330) configured to supply heat to the tray (paragraph [0084]), wherein a turn-on condition of the heater (330) is determined to be satisfied (need for defrosting), the heater (330) is turned on when the turn-on condition of the heater is determined to be satisfied (defrosting), wherein the heater (330), after the heater is turned on, operates to supply an amount of heat (paragraph [0084]), wherein when an output of the compressor (112) is determined to be decreased (end of ice making operation), the output of the compressor is decreased and the amount of heat is decreased (end of ice making and defrosting operation), and wherein when the output of the compressor is determined to be increased (resuming ice making), the output of the compressor is increased and the amount of heat is increased (resume ice making and subsequent defrosting), wherein a turn-off condition of the heater is determined to be satisfied (no more frost), and wherein the heater is turned off when the turn-off condition of the heater is determined to be satisfied (all frost removed).
Lee fails to teach the heater configured to make the ice transparent.
Lee ‘025 teaches a heater (50) configured to make ice transparent (abstract).
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 configured to make the ice transparent to the structure of Lee as taught by Lee ’025 in order to advantageously remove trapped air in the water during the freezing process (see page 5 of the machine translation of Lee ‘025).
Regarding Claim 2: Lee teaches wherein the heater (330) is turned on when the turn-on condition of the heater is determined to be satisfied (defrosting, paragraph [0084]), the heater being not turned on immediately after the liquid is supplied into the cell (ice making operation, paragraph [0042]).
Regarding Claim 6: Lee teaches wherein the heater (330), after the heater is turned on, operates to supply the amount of heat (paragraph [0084]), a timing at which the amount of heat varies being determined by a temperature of the cell (defrosting operation is when frost builds, which effects temperature paragraphs [0070]).
Regarding Claim 8: Lee teaches wherein the amount of heat is varied (control of heater is turned on/off depending on defrosting paragraph [0084]) while a cooling power of the cooler is maintained (freezing fan 144 still running, evaporator 122 still absorbing heat, paragraph [0084]).
Regarding Claim 9: Lee teaches wherein the amount of heat is varied (control of heater is turned on/off depending on defrosting paragraph [0084]) while an output of the compressor (112) is maintained (via 113, compressor still running).
Regarding Claim 15: Lee teaches a refrigerator (abstract) comprising: a storage chamber (paragraph [0084]); a cooler (Figure 4) including a compressor (112) configured to compress a refrigerant (paragraph [0057]); and an ice maker (190) comprising: a tray (212) configured to define a cell (cavities in 212) that is a space in which a liquid (water) introduced into the space is to phase-change into ice by a cooler (evaporator 122 and fan 144, paragraph [0061]); and a heater configured to supply heat (330), wherein a turn-on condition of the heater is determined to be satisfied (defrosting operation, paragraph [0084]), wherein the heater (330) is turned on when the turn-on condition of the heater is determined to be satisfied (need to defrost), wherein the heater (330), after the heater is turned on, operates to supply an amount of heat (defrosting operation, paragraph [0084]), and wherein when an output of the compressor (112) is determined to be decreased (by controller 310, to driver 113, 332, paragraphs [0072] and [0084]), the output of the compressor is decreased and the amount of heat is decreased (end of defrosting cycle).
Lee fails to teach the heater configured to make the ice transparent.
Lee ‘025 teaches a heater (50) configured to make ice transparent (abstract).
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 configured to make the ice transparent to the structure of Lee as taught by Lee ’025 in order to advantageously remove trapped air in the water during the freezing process (see page 5 of the machine translation of Lee ‘025).
Regarding Claim 16: Lee teaches wherein the amount of heat is varied (control of heater is turned on/off depending on defrosting paragraph [0084]) while the output of the compressor (112) is maintained (via 113, compressor still running).
Regarding Claim 18: Lee teaches a refrigerator (abstract) comprising: a storage chamber (paragraph [0084]); a cooler (Figure 4) including a compressor (112) configured to compress a refrigerant (paragraph [0057]); and an ice maker (190) comprising: a tray (212) configured to define a cell (cavities in 212) that is a space in which a liquid introduced into the space is to phase-change into ice by a cooler (Figure 4); and a heater (330) configured to supply heat (paragraph [0084]), wherein a turn-on condition of the heater is determined to be satisfied (defrosting, paragraph [0048]), wherein the heater (330) is turned on when the turn-on condition of the heater is determined to be satisfied (paragraph [0084]), wherein the heater, after the heater is turned on, operates to supply an amount of heat, and wherein when an output of the compressor (112) is determined to be increased (via 310, 113), the output of the compressor is increased and the amount of heat is increased (defrosting operation, paragraph [0084]).
Lee fails to teach the heater configured to make the ice transparent.
Lee ‘025 teaches a heater (50) configured to make ice transparent (abstract).
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 configured to make the ice transparent to the structure of Lee as taught by Lee ’025 in order to advantageously remove trapped air in the water during the freezing process (see page 5 of the machine translation of Lee ‘025).
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2015/0192346 A1), hereafter referred to as “Lee,” in view of Lee (KR 20110056025 A, machine translation), hereafter referred to as “Lee ‘025,” As applied to claims 1-2 above, and further in view of Nakanishi et al. (JPH 05164441 A, machine translation), hereafter referred to as “Nakanishi.”
Regarding Claim 3: Lee modified supra fails to teach wherein the turn-on condition of the heater is determined to be satisfied when a temperature of the cell reaches a turn-on reference temperature.
Nakanishi teaches a turn-on condition of a heater (22) is determined to be satisfied when a temperature (via 19) of a cell (cavities in 12) reaches a turn-on reference temperature (paragraph [0010], machine translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein the turn-on condition of the heater is determined to be satisfied when a temperature of the cell reaches a turn-on reference temperature to the structure of Lee modified supra as taught by Nakanishi in order to advantageously provide automated ice making and removal (see Nakanishi, paragraph [0010], machine translation).
Regarding Claim 4: Lee modified supra fails to teach wherein the turn-on condition of the heater is determined to be satisfied when a predetermined time elapses from a set specific time point.
Nakanishi teaches a turn-on condition of a heater (22) is determined to be satisfied when a predetermined time elapses from a set specific time point (paragraphs [0010]-[0011], machine translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein the turn-on condition of the heater is determined to be satisfied when a predetermined time elapses from a set specific time point to the structure of Lee modified supra as taught by Nakanishi in order to advantageously provide automated ice making and removal (see Nakanishi, paragraph [0010], machine translation).
Regarding Claim 5: Lee modified supra fails to teach wherein the heater, after the heater is turned on, operates to supply the amount of heat, a timing at which the amount of heat varies being determined by a time.
Nakanishi teaches a heater (22), after the heater is turned on, operates to supply an amount of heat, a timing at which the amount of heat varies being determined by a time (paragraphs [0010]-[0011], and page 5 of the machine translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein the heater, after the heater is turned on, operates to supply the amount of heat, a timing at which the amount of heat varies being determined by a time to the structure of Lee modified supra as taught by Nakanishi in order to advantageously provide automated ice making and removal (see Nakanishi, paragraph [0010], machine translation).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2015/0192346 A1), hereafter referred to as “Lee,” in view of Lee (KR 20110056025 A, machine translation), hereafter referred to as “Lee ‘025,” As applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yoon et al. (US 2019/0219317 A1), hereafter referred to as “Yoon.”
Regarding Claim 7: Lee modified supra fails to teach wherein the heater, after the heater is turned on, 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 space, the first amount of heat being different from the second amount of heat.
Yoon teaches a heater (120, see Figure 30), after the heater is turned on, operates to: supply a first amount of heat when liquid in a space is capable of being phase-changed into ice in a section of a cell (paragraphs [0156]-[01257]), 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 space, the first amount of heat being different from the second amount of heat (see Figure 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 wherein the heater, after the heater is turned on, 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 space, the first amount of heat being different from the second amount of heat to the structure of Lee modified supra as taught by Yoon in order to advantageously provide higher transparency in the ice cubes (see Yoon, paragraph [0161]).
Claims 10-14, 17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2015/0192346 A1), hereafter referred to as “Lee,” in view of Lee (KR 20110056025 A, machine translation), hereafter referred to as “Lee ‘025,” As applied to claims 1, 15, and 18 above, and further in view of Son et al. (US 2013/0014536 A1), hereafter referred to as “Son.”
Regarding Claim 10: Lee teaches wherein the tray (212) includes: a first tray (212) having a portion of the cell (cavities in 212, see Figure 3).
Lee modified supra fails to teach a second tray having another portion of the cell.
Son teaches a second tray (12) having another portion of a cell (141).
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 tray having another portion of the cell to the structure of Lee modified supra as taught by Son in order to advantageously provide sphere shaped ice (see Son, paragraph [0053]).
Regarding Claim 11: Lee teaches wherein the ice maker (190) further comprises a first tray case (219) coupled to the first tray (212).
Regarding Claim 12: Lee modified supra fails to teach wherein the first tray case is manufactured as a separate part from a bracket and is coupled to the bracket.
Son teaches a first tray case (111) is manufactured as a separate part from a bracket (mounting seen in Figure 2) and is coupled to the bracket (see Figure 2).
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 first tray case is manufactured as a separate part from a bracket and is coupled to the bracket to the structure of Lee modified supra as taught by Son in order to advantageously provide the case from movement of the parts within the ice tray and for mounting to stabilize the ice maker in the refrigerator (see Son, paragraph [0004]).
Regarding Claim 13: Lee modified supra fails to teach wherein the first tray case is integrally formed with a bracket.
Son teaches a first tray case (body of 11) is integrally formed with a bracket (111).
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 first tray case is integrally formed with a bracket to the structure of Lee modified supra as taught by Son in order to advantageously provide the case from movement of the parts within the ice tray and for mounting to stabilize the ice maker in the refrigerator (see Son, paragraph [0004]).
Regarding Claim 14: Lee modified supra fails to teach wherein the ice maker further comprises a second tray case coupled to the second tray.
Son teaches an ice maker (10) further comprises a second tray case (13) coupled to a second tray (12).
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 ice maker further comprises a second tray case coupled to the second tray to the structure of Lee modified supra as taught by Son in order to advantageously provide the case from movement of the parts within the ice tray and for mounting to stabilize the ice maker in the refrigerator (see Son, paragraph [0004]).
Regarding Claim 17: Lee teaches wherein the tray (212) includes: a first tray (212) having a portion of the cell (cavities in 212); and wherein the ice maker further comprises: a first tray case (219) coupled to the first tray (212).
Lee modified supra fails to teach a second tray case coupled to the second tray.
Son teaches a second tray (12) having another portion of a cell (141), a second tray case (13) coupled to the second tray (12).
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 tray having another portion of the cell, a second tray case coupled to the second tray to the structure of Lee modified supra as taught by Son in order to advantageously provide sphere shaped ice (see Son, paragraph [0053]).
Regarding Claim 19: Lee teaches wherein the ice maker (190) further comprises a first tray case (219) coupled to the first tray (212).
Lee modified supra fails to teach wherein the first tray case is manufactured as a separate part from a bracket and is coupled to the bracket.
Son teaches a first tray case (111) is manufactured as a separate part from a bracket (mounting seen in Figure 2) and is coupled to the bracket (see Figure 2).
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 first tray case is manufactured as a separate part from a bracket and is coupled to the bracket to the structure of Lee modified supra as taught by Son in order to advantageously provide the case from movement of the parts within the ice tray and for mounting to stabilize the ice maker in the refrigerator (see Son, paragraph [0004]).
Regarding Claim 20: Lee modified supra fails to teach wherein the ice maker further comprises a pusher having at least one column and configured to separate the ice from the cell, the column having an end with at least an edge, wherein the pusher is installed in the bracket.
Son an ice maker (10) further comprises a pusher (19, 191) having at least one column (192) and configured to separate ice from a cell (113), the column having an end with at least an edge (see Figure 3), wherein the pusher is installed in a bracket (22).
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 ice maker further comprises a pusher having at least one column and configured to separate the ice from the cell, the column having an end with at least an edge, wherein the pusher is installed in the bracket to the structure of Lee modified supra as taught by Son in order to advantageously provide an ejector for improved ice removal (see Son, paragraph [0061]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Son et al. (US 2013/0014535 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
/LEN TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763