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.
The claims have indefinite and unclear for the following reasons:
Per MPEP 2173.05(p)II “A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite.” In the instant application, the claims are apparatus claims with various method steps claimed (i.e., the heating processes/ heating supplied operation steps/heating operations in the claims in the “wherein clauses”). Claims 1-20 all have wherein clauses. If applicant wishes to claim specific processes, applicant needs to amend the claims directed to a method or claims specific structure that is fully supported in the originally filed disclose that is configured to perform specific intended use functional limitations or programmed to perform such method steps. As written the claims are “hybrid” method steps in apparatus claims.
By virtue of dependency, the dependent claims are also rejected.
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 all have wherein clauses. If applicant wishes to claim specific processes, applicant needs to amend the claims directed to a method or claims specific structure that is fully supported in the originally filed disclose that is configured to perform specific intended use functional limitations or programmed to perform such method steps. As written the claims are “hybrid” method steps in apparatus claims, and thus are unclear and indefinite.
The claims are interpreted for purposes of examination as only needing the capability to perform the wherein clauses.
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, 4-6, 8, 10-12, 14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Junge et al. (US 20200033042 A1), hereafter referred to as “Junge” in view of Kim et al. (US 2010/0018226 A1), hereafter referred to as “Kim."
Regarding Claim 1: Junge teaches a refrigerator (100) comprising: a storage chamber (104, 106); and an ice maker (title, 102) including: a tray assembly (130) configured to form a portion of a cell (134) that is a space in which a liquid (water, abstract) introduced into the space is phase changed into ice (paragraph [0028]); and a heater (182) configured to provide heat to the cell (134).
Junge fails to teach wherein an amount of heat supplied into the cell varies when an amount of cold supplied into the cell varies, wherein the amount of heat supplied into the cell varies so as to maintain a first ice making rate within a predetermined range that is lower than a second ice making rate when an ice making process is performed in a state in which the heater is turned off, and wherein the first ice making rate is equal to or greater than the second ice making rate×a1 and less than or equal to the second ice making rate×b1, the a1 being 0.25 or more and 0.42 or less, and the b1 being 0.64 or more and 0.91 or less.
Kim teaches an amount of heat supplied into a cell varies when an amount of cold supplied into the cell varies (paragraphs [0016]-[0017]).
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 amount of heat supplied into the cell varies when an amount of cold supplied into the cell varies to the structure of Junge as taught by Kim in order to advantageously provide user controlled ice making to a specific rate as needed (see Kim, paragraphs [0016]-[0017]).
However, Junge modified supra teaches the claimed structure of the refrigerator and the ability to vary the heater voltage/power as taught by Kim (paragraphs [0016]-[0017]). Thus, the change in heater amounts is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is an improved control of the cooling power of the refrigerator (see Kim, paragraphs [0016]-[0017]).
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 amount of heat supplied into the cell varies so as to maintain a first ice making rate within a predetermined range that is lower than a second ice making rate when an ice making process is performed in a state in which the heater is turned off, and wherein the first ice making rate is equal to or greater than the second ice making rate×a1 and less than or equal to the second ice making rate×b1, the a1 being 0.25 or more and 0.42 or less, and the b1 being 0.64 or more and 0.91 or less in order to achieve efficient operation of the system.
Regarding Claim 4: Junge modified supra wherein the amount of heat supplied (via 182 of Junge) into the cell (134 of Junge) increases (paragraphs [0016]-[0017] of Kim) when a cooling power of a cooler increases (varying the volumetric flow rate of 124 of Junge, paragraph [0040]).
Regarding Claim 5: Junge teaches wherein the cooler (112 and 124) includes a compressor (114) compressing a refrigerant, and an output of the compressor increases (compressor on/active).
Regarding Claim 6: Junge teaches wherein the cooler (124) includes a fan blowing air to an evaporator (120), and an output of the fan increases (paragraph [0040]).
Regarding Claim 8: Junge modified supra teaches wherein the amount of heat supplied (via 182 of Junge) into the cell (134 of Junge) increases wherein a target temperature of the storage chamber is lowered (functional limitation, paragraphs [0016]-[0017] of Kim).
Regarding Claim 10: Junge modified supra teaches wherein the amount of heat (via 182 of Junge, varying as taught by Kim, paragraphs [0016]-[0017]) supplied into the cell (134 of Junge) decreases when a cooling power of a cooler decreases (paragraphs [0049] and [0053] of Junge).
Regarding Claim 11: Junge teaches wherein the cooler (112 and 124) includes a compressor (114) compressing a refrigerant, and an output of the compressor decreases (turning the compressor off/deactivated).
Regarding Claim 12: Junge teaches wherein the cooler (112 and 124) includes a fan (paragraph [0029]) blowing air to an evaporator (120), and an output of the fan decreases (paragraph [0040]).
Regarding Claim 14: Junge teaches wherein the amount of heat (change in air flow around the mold 130 affects the heat transfer provided by 182) supplied into the cell (134) decreases wherein a target temperature of the storage chamber is raised (paragraphs [0049] and [0053]).
Regarding Claim 16: Junge teaches wherein the cold is a cold air (via 124, paragraphs [0029] and [0040]).
Regarding Claim 17: Junge teaches a refrigerator (100) comprising: a storage chamber (104, 106); and an ice maker (102) including: a tray assembly (130) configured to form a portion of a cell (134) that is a space in which a liquid introduced into the space is phase changed into ice (paragraph [0028]); and a heater (182) configured to supply an amount of heat to the cell (paragraph [0037]), wherein the heater (182), when being turned on to supply the heat to the cell (paragraph [0037]), operates to: supply a first amount of heat when a first amount of cold is supplied to the cell (paragraph [0038]).
Junge fails to teach to supply a second amount of heat when a second amount of cold is supplied to the cell, the second amount of heat being different from the first amount of heat, and the second amount of cold being different from the first amount of cold, wherein the amount of heat supplied varies so as to maintain a first ice making rate within a predetermined range that is lower than a second ice making rate when an ice making process is performed in a state in which the heater is turned off, and wherein the first ice making rate is equal to or greater than the second ice making rate×a1 and less than or equal to the second ice making rate×b1, the a1 being 0.25 or more and 0.42 or less, and the b1 being 0.64 or more and 0.91 or less.
Kim teaches an amount of heat supplied into a cell varies when an amount of cold supplied into the cell varies (paragraphs [0016]-[0017]).
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 amount of heat supplied into the cell varies when an amount of cold supplied into the cell varies to the structure of Junge as taught by Kim in order to advantageously provide user controlled ice making to a specific rate as needed (see Kim, paragraphs [0016]-[0017]).
However, Junge modified supra teaches the claimed structure of the refrigerator and the ability to vary the heater voltage/power as taught by Kim (paragraphs [0016]-[0017]). Thus, the change in heater amounts is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is an improved control of the cooling power of the refrigerator (see Kim, paragraphs [0016]-[0017]).
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 supply a second amount of heat when a second amount of cold is supplied to the cell, the second amount of heat being different from the first amount of heat, and the second amount of cold being different from the first amount of cold, wherein the amount of heat supplied varies so as to maintain a first ice making rate within a predetermined range that is lower than a second ice making rate when an ice making process is performed in a state in which the heater is turned off, and wherein the first ice making rate is equal to or greater than the second ice making rate×a1 and less than or equal to the second ice making rate×b1, the a1 being 0.25 or more and 0.42 or less, and the b1 being 0.64 or more and 0.91 or less in order to achieve efficient operation of the system.
Regarding Claim 18: Junge modified supra fails to teach wherein the second amount of heat is greater than the first amount of heat when the second amount of cold is greater than the first amount of cold.
However, Junge modified supra teaches the claimed structure of the refrigerator and the ability to vary the heater voltage/power as taught by Kim (paragraphs [0016]-[0017]). Thus, the change in heater amounts is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is an improved control of the cooling power of the refrigerator (see Kim, paragraphs [0016]-[0017]).
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 second amount of heat is greater than the first amount of heat when the second amount of cold is greater than the first amount of cold in order to achieve efficient operation of the system.
Regarding Claim 19: Junge modified supra fails to teach wherein the second amount of heat is smaller than the first amount of heat when the second amount of cold is smaller than the first amount of cold.
However, Junge modified supra teaches the claimed structure of the refrigerator and the ability to vary the heater voltage/power as taught by Kim (paragraphs [0016]-[0017]). Thus, the change in heater amounts is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is an improved control of the cooling power of the refrigerator (see Kim, paragraphs [0016]-[0017]).
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 the second amount of heat is smaller than the first amount of heat when the second amount of cold is smaller than the first amount of cold in order to achieve efficient operation of the system.
Regarding Claim 20: Junge teaches a refrigerator (100) comprising: a storage chamber (104, 106); and an ice maker (102) including: a tray assembly (130) configured to form a portion of a cell (134) that is a space in which a liquid introduced into the space is phase changed into ice (paragraph [0028]); and a heater (182) configured to supply an amount of heat to the cell, wherein the heater (paragraph [0037]), when being turned on to supply the heat to the cell, operates to: supply a first amount of heat when a first amount of cold is supplied to the cell (paragraph [0037]).
Junge fails to teach to supply a second amount of heat when a second amount of cold is supplied to the cell, the second amount of heat being different from the first amount of heat, and the second amount of cold being different from the first amount of cold.
Kim teaches an amount of heat supplied into a cell varies when an amount of cold supplied into the cell varies (paragraphs [0016]-[0017]).
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 amount of heat supplied into the cell varies when an amount of cold supplied into the cell varies to the structure of Junge as taught by Kim in order to advantageously provide user controlled ice making to a specific rate as needed (see Kim, paragraphs [0016]-[0017]).
However, Junge modified supra teaches the claimed structure of the refrigerator and the ability to vary the heater voltage/power as taught by Kim (paragraphs [0016]-[0017]). Thus, the change in heater amounts is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is an improved control of the cooling power of the refrigerator (see Kim, paragraphs [0016]-[0017]).
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 supply a second amount of heat when a second amount of cold is supplied to the cell, the second amount of heat being different from the first amount of heat, and the second amount of cold being different from the first amount of cold in order to achieve efficient operation of the system.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Junge et al. (US 20200033042 A1), hereafter referred to as “Junge” in view of Kim et al. (US 2010/0018226 A1), hereafter referred to as “Kim," as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nakano et al. (CN 1532484 A), hereafter referred to as “Nakano."
Regarding Claim 2: Junge modified supra fails to teach wherein the amount of heat supplied into the cell varies when a defrosting operation is performed with respect to a cooler of the storage chamber.
Nakano teaches wherein an amount of heat supplied into a cell varies when a defrosting operation is performed with respect to a cooler of a storage chamber (page of 11 the machine translation section of reference, 1st and 2nd paragraph).
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 amount of heat supplied into the cell varies when a defrosting operation is performed with respect to a cooler of the storage chamber to the structure of Junge modified supra as taught by Nakano in order to advantageously provide power control to the system depending on the mode of operation (see Nakano, page of 11 the machine translation section of reference, 1st and 2nd paragraph).
Regarding Claim 3: Junge teaches wherein the cooler (112 and 124) includes an evaporator (120).
Claims 7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Junge et al. (US 20200033042 A1), hereafter referred to as “Junge” in view of Kim et al. (US 2010/0018226 A1), hereafter referred to as “Kim," as applied to claims 4 and 10 above, and further in view of Noth et al. (US 2016/0278401 A1), hereafter referred to as “Noth."
Regarding Claim 7: Junge teaches wherein the cooler (112 and 124) includes a refrigerant valve (118, paragraph [0027]) controlling an amount of a refrigerant flowing through a refrigerant cycle (paragraph [0027]).
Junge modified supra fails to teach controlling an opening degree of the refrigerant valve increases.
Noth teaches controlling an opening degree of a refrigerant valve increases (paragraph [0049]).
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 controlling an opening degree of the refrigerant valve increases to the structure of Junge modified supra as taught by Noth in order to advantageously provide control over the cooling power by controlling the refrigerant supply (see Noth, paragraph [0049]).
Regarding Claim 13: Junge teaches wherein the cooler (112 and 124) includes a refrigerant valve (118, paragraph [0027]) controlling an amount of a refrigerant flowing through a refrigerant cycle (paragraph [0027]).
Junge modified supra fails to teach controlling an opening degree of the refrigerant valve decreases.
Noth teaches controlling an opening degree of a refrigerant valve decreases (paragraph [0049]).
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 controlling an opening degree of the refrigerant valve decreases to the structure of Junge modified supra as taught by Noth in order to advantageously provide control over the cooling power by controlling the refrigerant supply (see Noth, paragraph [0049]).
Claims 9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Junge et al. (US 20200033042 A1), hereafter referred to as “Junge” in view of Kim et al. (US 2010/0018226 A1), hereafter referred to as “Kim," as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Linstromberg (4,475,357).
Regarding Claim 9: Junge modified supra fails to teach wherein the amount of heat supplied into the cell increases wherein an operation mode of the storage chamber is changed from a first mode to a second mode, the second mode being a mode in which an ice making process completes faster than the first mode.
Linstromberg teaches a second mode being a mode in which an ice making process completes faster than the first mode (normal ice making mode is slower than a fast mode, Column 5, lines 51-68).
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 mode being a mode in which an ice making process completes faster than the first mode to the structure of Junge modified supra as taught by Linstromberg in order to advantageously provide allowing the user to have options in types of ice and time required to make the ice (see Linstromberg, Column 5, lines 51-68).
However, Junge modified supra teaches the claimed structure of the refrigerator and the ability to vary the heater voltage/power as taught by Kim (paragraphs [0016]-[0017]). Thus, the change in heater amounts is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is an improved control of the cooling power of the refrigerator (see Kim, paragraphs [0016]-[0017]).
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 amount of heat supplied into the cell increases wherein an operation mode of the storage chamber is changed from a first mode to a second mode in order to achieve efficient operation of the system.
Regarding Claim 15: Junge modified supra fails to teach wherein the amount of heat supplied into the cell decreases wherein an operation mode of the storage chamber is changed from a first mode to a second mode, the second mode being a mode in which an ice making process completes slower than the first mode.
Linstromberg teaches a second mode being a mode in which an ice making process completes slower than a first mode (normal ice making mode is slower than a fast mode, Column 5, lines 51-68).
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 mode being a mode in which an ice making process completes slower than the first mode to the structure of Junge modified supra as taught by Linstromberg in order to advantageously provide allowing the user to have options in types of ice and time required to make the ice (see Linstromberg, Column 5, lines 51-68).
However, Junge modified supra teaches the claimed structure of the refrigerator and the ability to vary the heater voltage/power as taught by Kim (paragraphs [0016]-[0017]). Thus, the change in heater amounts is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is an improved control of the cooling power of the refrigerator (see Kim, paragraphs [0016]-[0017]).
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 amount of heat supplied into the cell decreases wherein an operation mode of the storage chamber is changed from a first mode to a second mode in order to achieve efficient operation of the system.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Watson et al (US 20100070091 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
/ERIC S RUPPERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763