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 05/11/2026. The drawing objection, abstract objection and 35 U.S.C. 112b rejection is withdrawn. Claims 1-20 remain pending for consideration on the merits.
This Office Action contains a New Grounds of Rejection. Since this new ground of
rejection did not result from an amendment to the claims, this Office Action is being made to
Non-Final to afford the Applicant the opportunity to respond to the new grounds of rejection.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ji et al (US 20170211864 A1, hereinafter Ji) in view of Hong et al (US 20130167575 A1, hereinafter Hong).
Regarding claim 1, Ji teaches an ice maker (ice making machine 10) comprising: a tray (tray 5) configured to define a cell (figure 2a) that is a space in which a liquid introduced to the space is phase-changed into ice (paragraph 0048); a heater (heater 15) configured to supply heat to the cell (paragraph 0050); and a heater case (cases 5a/5b) to which the heater is coupled (paragraph 0058), wherein the heater (heater 15) includes: a first portion (lower portion of heater 15 contacting case 5b, figure 2a) disposed on the heater case (as shown on figure 2a) and contacting the heater case (as shown on figure 2a); and a second portion (upper portion of heater 15, figure 2a) contacting the tray (upper portion of heater 15 contacting tray 5, figure 2a), the first portion (lower portion of heater 15 contacting case 5b, figure 2a) and the second portion (upper portion of heater 15, figure 2a) being arranged in a first direction (as described in paragraph 0058 and as shown on figure 2a).
Ji teaches the invention as described above but fail to teach wherein the heater case includes a guide extending in the first direction, and configured to fix the heater to the heater case.
However, Hong teaches wherein the heater case (duct 330) includes a guide (ice separating heater contacting unit 362) extending in the first direction (laterally or horizontal direction, figure 8), and configured to fix the heater to the heater case (as described in paragraph 0096).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the ice maker in the teachings of Ji to include wherein the heater case includes a guide extending in the first direction, and configured to fix the heater to the heater case in view of the teachings of Hong in order to yield the predictable result of thereby preventing the formation of frost.
Further, it is understood, claim 1 includes an intended use recitation, for example “…configured to...”. The applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner which a claimed apparatus is intended to be does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, the claims are directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
Regarding claim 2, the combined teachings teach wherein the heater (heater 15 of Ji) has a portion positioned between (as shown on figure 2a of Ji) the tray (tray 5 of Ji) and the heater case (cases 5a/5b of Ji).
Regarding claim 3, the combined teachings teach wherein the guide (ice separating heater contacting unit 362 of Hong) is positioned between the tray (ice making tray 340 of Hong) and the heater case (duct 330 of Hong).
Regarding claim 15, the combined teachings teach all the limitations of claim 1. See rejections of claim 1.
Claims 4 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ji as modified by Hong as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Seo (KR 101760814 B1, hereinafter Seo).
Regarding claims 4 and 16, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to teach further comprising a pusher having at least one bar and configured to separate the ice from the cell, the bar having an end with at least an edge, wherein the heater case includes an opening through which the pusher passes.
However, Seo teaches further comprising a pusher (lower elevating unit 220) having at least one bar (lower lifting rod 222) and configured to separate the ice from the cell (as shown on figure 5), the bar having an end with at least an edge (as shown on figure 5), wherein the heater case (lower mold 210, corresponding to case 5b of Ji) includes an opening (seating plate 221) through which the pusher passes (as shown on figure 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the ice maker in the teachings of Ji to include further comprising a pusher having at least one bar and configured to separate the ice from the cell, the bar having an end with at least an edge, wherein the heater case includes an opening through which the pusher passes in view of the teachings of Seo in order to yield the predictable result of discharging the ice ball dropped by the discharge cylinder in one direction and discharging it to the collection side.
Further, it is understood, claims 4, 13 and 16 includes an intended use recitation, for example “…configured to...”. The applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner which a claimed apparatus is intended to be does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, the claims are directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ji as modified by Hong as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Culley et al (US 10605512 B2, hereinafter Culley).
Regarding claim 5, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to teach wherein the tray includes: a first tray configured to define a first portion of the cell; a second tray configured to define a second portion of the cell.
However, Culley teaches wherein the tray (mold 10) includes: a first tray (second mold portion 30) configured to define a first portion of the cell (concave depression 38); a second tray (first mold portion 20) configured to define a second portion of the cell (concave depression 28).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the ice maker in the combined teachings to include wherein the tray includes: a first tray configured to define a first portion of the cell; a second tray configured to define a second portion of the cell in view of the teachings of Culley in order to yield the predictable result of aligning and cooperating to define a mold cavity which is adapted to form one or more ice structures.
Further, it is understood, claim 5 includes an intended use recitation, for example “…configured to...”. The applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner which a claimed apparatus is intended to be does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, the claims are directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
Regarding claim 6, the combined teachings teach wherein the first tray (second mold portion 30 of Culley) includes a first contact surface (top surface 32 of Culley) contacting the second tray (figure 1 of Culley), and the second tray (first mold portion 20 of Culley) includes a second contact surface (surface 24 of Culley) contacting the first contact surface of the first tray (figure 1 of Culley), the second tray movable with respect to the first tray (as shown on figure 2 of Culley) and the first contact surface contacting the second contact surface at an ice making position (while in the closed position 16, the concave depression 28 of the first mold portion 20 and the concave depression 38 of the second mold portion 30 are aligned and cooperate to define a mold cavity 40 which is adapted to form one or more ice structures therein, col 3 lines 16-20 of Culley).
Claims 7-8, 17-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ji as modified by Hong as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shi et al (US 20200080759 A1, hereinafter Shi).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to teach further comprising a tray cover provided on the tray.
However, Shi teaches further comprising a tray cover (cover 118) provided on the tray (ice mold 102, figure 4a).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the ice maker in the combined teachings to include further comprising a tray cover provided on the tray in view of the teachings of Shi in order to yield the predictable result of securing the ice tray assembly to mating openings in the liner or in a top wall of the frame.
Regarding claim 8, the combined teachings teach further comprising a tray cover (cover 118 of Shi) configured to surround at least a portion (as shown on figures 4a-4b of Shi) of an outer appearance of the tray (ice mold 102, figures 4a-4b of Shi).
Regarding claims 18 and 20, the combined teachings teach a refrigerator (refrigerator 20 of Shi) comprising: a storage chamber (fresh food compartment 24 of Shi) configured to store food (paragraph 0069 of Shi); a door (doors 26 of Shi) that opens (figure 2 of Shi) and closes the storage chamber (figure 1 of Shi); and the ice maker (ice maker 50 of Shi) according to claims 1 and 15.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 9, the subject matter which is considered to distinguish from the closest prior art of record, Hong et al (US 20130167575 A1). The prior art of record when considered as a whole, alone, or in combination, neither anticipates nor renders obvious “the heater includes a first surface in contact with the outer surface the tray, a second surface in contact with the heater case, the first surface being spaced apart from the second surface in a first direction, and a third surface positioned between the first surface of the heater and the second surface of the heater and having a portion spaced apart from the cell surface and the outer surface”. The closest prior art, Hong teaches an ice separating heater fixing unit 332 configured to support the ice separating heater 370 and closely attach the ice separating heater 370 to the ice separating heater contacting unit 362 of the ice making tray 340 and a refrigerant pipe fixing unit 333 configured to support the ice making compartment refrigerant pipe 57 and closely attach the ice making compartment refrigerant pipe 57 to the refrigerant pipe contacting unit 361 of the ice making tray 340.
Therefore, it would not be obvious to modify the technique and methods of the prior art structures to have the apparatus as claimed without improper hindsight and independent claim 9 along with dependent claims therefrom are considered allowable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARIO DELEON whose telephone number is (571)272-8687. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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.
/DARIO ANTONIO DELEON/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights