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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/16/2025 was filed after the mailing date of the published application on 09/19/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 “the first portion and the second portion being arranged in a first direction, 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, further comprising a tray cover maintaining an outer appearance of the tray, wherein the heater includes a third surface positioned between the first surface of the heater and the second surface of the heater, and contacting the guide” 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.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is less than 50 words in length. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 § 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 8, 15-17 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.
Claim 8 recite “a tray cover maintaining an outer appearance of the tray”. However, it is unclear what the metes and bounds of the claim are. It is unclear to the Examiner what is the outer appearance of the tray and how the tray cover maintains the outer appearance of the tray. Clarity is advised.
Regarding claim 15, the claims recite “a wire type heater”. However, it has been held that the addition of the word "type" to an otherwise definite expression extends the scope of the expression so as to render it indefinite (See MPEP § 2173.05(b) (III) (E)). It is unclear whether infringement would occur when it is a wire heater, or if the claim requires a specific type of wire heater for infringement. For examination purposes, the claim will be construed as simply having an open ceiling.
Claims 16-17 and 20 are rejected based on dependency from a rejected claim.
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1-3, 10, 12 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 Cho (KR 20000011101 U, hereinafter Cho).
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, Cho teaches wherein the heater case (ice making case 11) includes a guide (guide bar 19) extending in the first direction (as shown on figure 1), and configured to fix the heater (heater 22) to the heater case (ice making case 11).
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 Cho in order to yield the predictable result of heating with a heater in advance to separate the ice to be iced without leaving ice in the ice making case.
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 claims 3 and 12, the combined teachings teach wherein the guide (guide bar 19 of Cho) is positioned between the tray (compartment 20 of Cho) and the heater case (ice making case 11 of Cho).
Regarding claim 10, the combined teachings teach all the limitations of claim 10. See rejections of claim 1.
Regarding claim 15, the combined teachings teach all the limitations of claim 10. See rejections of claim 1.
Claims 4, 13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ji as modified by Cho as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Seo (KR 101760814 B1, hereinafter Seo).
Regarding claims 4, 13 and 16, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to teach further comprising 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 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 column (lower lifting rod 222) and configured to separate the ice from the cell (as shown on figure 5), the column 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 column and configured to separate the ice from the cell, the column 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 Cho 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 (first mold portion 20) configured to define a first portion of the cell (concave depression 28); a second tray (second mold portion 30) configured to define a second portion of the cell (concave depression 38).
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 (first mold portion 20 of Culley) includes a first contact surface (bottom surface 24 of Culley) contacting the second tray (figure 1 of Culley), and the second tray (second mold portion 30 of Culley) includes a second contact surface (top surface 32 of Culley) contacting the first contact surface of the first tray (figure 1 of Culley), 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, 14 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ji as modified by Cho as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shi et al (US 20200080759 A1, hereinafter Shi).
Regarding claims 7, 14 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, in view of indefiniteness, further comprising a tray cover (cover 118 of Shi) maintaining an outer appearance of the tray (ice mold 102, figures 4a-4b of Shi).
Regarding claims 18-20, 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, 9 and 15.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ji et al (US 20170211864 A1, hereinafter Ji) in view of Seo (KR 101760814 B1, hereinafter Seo).
Regarding claim 9, 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) is disposed between the tray (tray 5) and the heater case (cases 5a/5b), and the heater (heater 15) includes a first surface (upper surface of heater 15, figure 2a) contacting the tray (tray 5) and a second surface (lower surface of heater 15, figure 2a) contacting the heater case (case 5b).
Ji teaches the invention as described above but fail to teach the first surface being spaced apart from the second surface in a first direction.
However, Seo teaches the first surface (upper surface of heating wire 213, figure 5) being spaced apart from the second surface (second surface of upper heat ray 233, as shown on figure 5) in a first direction (ice separation position, 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 the first surface being spaced apart from the second surface in a first direction 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, claim 9 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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ji as modified by Seo as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Boarman et al (US 20140165598 A1, hereinafter Boarman).
Regarding claim 11, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to teach wherein the heater includes a third surface positioned between the first surface of the heater and the second surface of the heater, and contacting the guide.
However, Boarman teaches wherein the heater (heating coil 520) includes a third surface positioned between the first surface (upper surface of heating coil 520, as shown on figures 29-30) of the heater (heating coil 520) and the second surface (lower surface of heating coil 520, as shown on figures 29-30) of the heater (heating coil 520), and contacting the guide (left portion of chill ring 508 contacting channel 516, paragraph 0122 and as shown on figures 29-30).
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 includes a third surface positioned between the first surface of the heater and the second surface of the heater, and contacting the guide in view of the teachings of Boarman in order to yield the predictable result of emitting heat which facilitates a directional freezing of water that is injected into the mold cavity.
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