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 05/04/2026. The 35 U.S.C. 112b rejections are withdrawn. Claim 1 remain pending for consideration on the merits.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mashita (JP 2014035128 A, hereinafter Mashita) in view of Ito et al (JP 2006226615 A, hereinafter Ito) and Yamamoto et al (JP H11173733 A, hereinafter Yamamoto).
Regarding claim 1, Mashita teaches a refrigerator control method (control unit 76) executed by a controller (control unit 76), comprising: collecting working parameters of an ice making system (the control unit 76 performs the defrosting operation and the ice making operation in the B2 time zone 24 hours after the minimum temperature time zone B1, paragraph 0046); when the working parameters meet a preset defrosting condition (minimum temperature time zone B1) of an ice making evaporator (evaporator 34).
Mashita teaches the invention as described above but fail to teach controlling the defrosting unit corresponding to the ice making evaporator to be started by the controller, when the working parameters of the ice making system do not meet the preset normal defrosting condition, when information on an amount of ice in an ice bin is detected to be full ice information, wherein the working parameters comprise a cumulative running time of a compressor after last defrosting of the ice making evaporator is finished, wherein the situation that the working parameters meet the preset normal defrosting condition of the ice making evaporator comprises the following situations: the cumulative running time of the compressor after the last defrosting of the ice making evaporator is finished reaches a preset first defrosting cycle of the ice making evaporator.
However, Ito teaches controlling a defrosting unit (defrosting control unit) corresponding to the ice making evaporator to be started (a defrosting control unit that performs a defrosting operation of the cooler, paragraph 0009) by the controller; and when the working parameters of the ice making system do not meet the preset normal defrosting condition (stop the execution of the defrosting operation until the ice making operation is completed a predetermined number of times, paragraph 0009), when information on an amount of ice in an ice bin is detected to be full ice information (performing a defrosting operation of the cooler at a preset defrosting start timing, and detects whether the ice amount in the ice storage box is full according to an arbitrary instruction, paragraph 0009), and when the working parameters meet a preset full ice defrosting condition of the ice making evaporator (when the ice storage amount is detected to be full by the ice amount detection lever, the rapid ice making operation may be terminated, paragraph 0032), controlling the defrosting unit corresponding to the ice making evaporator to be started (the defrost heater (11) is energized so as to heat the cooler (6) to melt the frost and discharge it as defrost water to the outside, paragraph 0014), wherein the working parameters comprise a cumulative running time of a compressor after last defrosting of the ice making evaporator is finished (performing the defrosting operation for a certain time from when the rapid ice making operation is started or until the ice making is completed a predetermined number of times, paragraph 0010), wherein the situation that the working parameters meet the preset normal defrosting condition of the ice making evaporator (performing the defrosting operation for a certain time from when the rapid ice making operation is started or until the ice making is completed a predetermined number of times, paragraph 0010) comprises the following situations: the cumulative running time of the compressor after the last defrosting of the ice making evaporator is finished reaches a preset first defrosting cycle of the ice making evaporator (performing the defrosting operation for a certain time from when the rapid ice making operation is started or until the ice making is completed a predetermined number of times, paragraph 0010).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method in the teachings of Mashita to include controlling the defrosting unit corresponding to the ice making evaporator to be started by the controller, when the working parameters of the ice making system do not meet the preset normal defrosting condition, when information on an amount of ice in an ice bin is detected to be full ice information, wherein the working parameters comprise a cumulative running time of a compressor after last defrosting of the ice making evaporator is finished, wherein the situation that the working parameters meet the preset normal defrosting condition of the ice making evaporator comprises the following situations: the cumulative running time of the compressor after the last defrosting of the ice making evaporator is finished reaches a preset first defrosting cycle of the ice making evaporator in view of the teachings of Ito in order to yield the predictable result of minimizing the adverse effect on the stored food due to the temperature rise during the defrosting before entering the defrosting operation.
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to teach the situation that the working parameters meet the preset full ice defrosting condition comprises the following situations: the cumulative running time of the compressor after the last defrosting of the ice making evaporator is finished is greater than or equal to a preset second defrosting cycle of the ice making evaporator; the preset first defrosting cycle of the ice making evaporator is greater than the preset second defrosting cycle.
However, Yamamoto teaches the situation that the working parameters meet the preset full ice defrosting condition (the ice making time can be shortened by continuing the rapid ice making, and the rapid ice making is continued by continuing the ice making in this manner. Can be completed in a stable time. Further, since the defrosting operation is started when the set number of ice making ends, paragraph 0054) comprises the following situations: the cumulative running time of the compressor (the accumulated operating time of the compressor 72, paragraph 0052) after the last defrosting of the ice making evaporator is finished (the defrost operation is started (see step S5, paragraph 0052) is greater than or equal to a preset second defrosting cycle of the ice making evaporator (the ice making time can be shortened by continuing the rapid ice making, and the rapid ice making is continued by continuing the ice making in this manner. Can be completed in a stable time. Further, since the defrosting operation is started when the set number of ice making ends, paragraph 0054); the preset first defrosting cycle of the ice making evaporator is greater (the defrosting operation is started, the ice making time in the rapid ice making is delayed. By extending the defrosting operation until the condition ends, rapid ice making can be continued, paragraph 0051) than the preset second defrosting cycle (when the ice detection lever 46 detects full ice, the second fan 56 is stopped to perform control to enter a precool operation and a defrost operation, paragraph 0056).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method in the combined teachings to include the situation that the working parameters meet the preset full ice defrosting condition comprises the following situations: the cumulative running time of the compressor after the last defrosting of the ice making evaporator is finished is greater than or equal to a preset second defrosting cycle of the ice making evaporator; the preset first defrosting cycle of the ice making evaporator is greater than the preset second defrosting cycle in view of the teachings of Yamamoto in order to yield the predictable result of preventing over frost on the cooler.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to the Applicant’s argument that “Ito teaches delaying or suspending the defrosting operation to prioritize rapid ice making, not initiating a proactive early defrost because the ice is full. Therefore, Ito does not disclose initiating the defrosting unit because the full ice information is detected and a specific full ice condition is met before the normal condition is satisfied”, the Examiner disagrees. In response to Applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). MPEP 2123 states "The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. For clarity, Yamamoto has been established as a secondary reference to teach “the working parameters meet the preset full ice defrosting condition comprises the following situations: the cumulative running time of the compressor after the last defrosting of the ice making evaporator is finished is greater than or equal to a preset full ice defrosting cycle of the ice making evaporator, or the number of ice making times of the ice making device is greater than or equal to a preset number of full ice defrosting ice making times; and the normal defrosting cycle of the ice making evaporator is greater than the full ice defrosting cycle, and the number of normal defrosting ice making times is greater than the number of full ice defrosting ice making times”. In other words, the teachings Yamamoto have been relied upon for making it obvious to modify the control method of Mashita and the defrosting control unit of Ito. MPEP 2123 states "The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned." Section 2123 goes on to state "A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonable suggestion to one having ordinary skill in the art". It has been held that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of one reference may be bodily incorporated into the other to produce the claimed subject matter but simply what the combination of references makes obvious to one of ordinary skill. Ito has been relied upon is established as a secondary reference used to teach “controlling the defrosting unit corresponding to the ice making evaporator to be started, wherein the working parameters comprise a cumulative running time of a compressor or a number of ice making times of an ice making device after last defrosting of the ice making evaporator is finished, wherein the situation that the working parameters meet the preset normal defrosting condition comprises the following situations: the cumulative running time of the compressor after the last defrosting of the ice making evaporator is finished reaches a preset normal defrosting cycle of the ice making evaporator, or the number of ice making times of the ice making device reaches a preset number of normal defrosting ice making times”, not “the working parameters meet the preset full ice defrosting condition comprises the following situations: the cumulative running time of the compressor after the last defrosting of the ice making evaporator is finished is greater than or equal to a preset full ice defrosting cycle of the ice making evaporator, or the number of ice making times of the ice making device is greater than or equal to a preset number of full ice defrosting ice making times; and the normal defrosting cycle of the ice making evaporator is greater than the full ice defrosting cycle, and the number of normal defrosting ice making times is greater than the number of full ice defrosting ice making times”. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would recognize the defrosting control unit of Ito could be used with the control unit of Yamamoto. Combining the defrosting control unit of Ito with the control unit of Yamamoto would prevent over frost on the cooler. It has been held that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of one reference may be bodily incorporated into the other to produce the claimed subject matter but simply what the combination of references makes obvious to one of ordinary skill. Therefore, the Applicant’s argument are not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
In response to Applicant’s argument that “Yamamoto shortens the defrosting cycle strictly because the system has entered a rapid ice making mode with a fan, which physically causes more frost to accumulate. Yamamoto does not shorten the defrost cycle because the ice bin is full. In fact, in Yamamoto, a full ice condition simply terminates the rapid ice making mode. Therefore, Yamamoto fails to disclose establishing a "full ice defrosting cycle" that is shorter than the "normal defrosting cycle" triggered by the detection of full ice” the references fail to show certain features of applicant’s invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a "full ice defrosting cycle" that is shorter than the "normal defrosting cycle" triggered by the detection of full ice) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. Therefore, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
In response to the Applicant’s argument that “There is no motivation to combine the references to arrive at the claimed invention. The present invention proactively triggers an early defrost specifically when the ice bin is full. As described in the present application (e.g., paragraph [0030]), when the ice bin is full, the large amount of ice emits a large amount of cold energy (a thermal buffer). This cold energy prevents the ice making compartment's temperature from rising excessively during the defrosting process. Thus, a "preset second defrosting cycle" is set to be shorter than a "preset first defrosting cycle" to take advantage of this optimal, energy-saving defrosting time without interrupting active ice making”, the Examiner disagrees. It is noted that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant' s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392; 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). The Examiner has met all requirements establishing a prima facie case: all factual findings required by Graham were supplied in the previous and present Actions; the references are related art, and Applicant has supplied no evidence that there is no reasonable expectation of success; all claim limitations were met in the previous and present Actions, and Applicant has merely made the allegation that the limitations are not met, and thus has not provided any evidence or argument directed to how the identified elements in the first action fail to meet the claimed limitations or to how the identified elements are otherwise distinguishable from the claimed limitations. Neither has Applicant supplied any evidence or argument addressing any failure of Examiner's application of the TSM test, pursuant to current governing law (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007)). Further, motivation was provided in all present and previous combinations of references. Although a specific motivation may not have been explicitly stated within one of the references, the motivation was not improper, and provided in accordance with the Teaching-Suggestion-Motivation Test (TSM). As such, Examiner's use of these facts as a motivation statement is in compliance with the requirements of the TSM test, since the Teaching-Suggestion-Motivation (TSM) test should be flexibly applied and the teaching, suggestion, or motivation need not be written within the reference. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (US 2007); Ortho-McNeil Pharm., Inc. v. Mylan Lab., Inc., 520 F.3d 1358, 86 U.S.P.Q.2d 1196 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Ex Parte Kubin, 83 USPQ2d 1410 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 2007).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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