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 Status
Claims 2-21 are pending. Claim 1 is canceled. Claims 1, 4, 9, and 15 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 2-21 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 2-4, 6-10, 12-15, and 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gaugler et al. (2,772,542), hereafter referred to as “Gaugler.”
Regarding Claim 2: Gaugler teaches an ice maker (evaporator of the refrigeration system not shown, Column 3, lines 24-31) comprising: a tray (25) configured to form at least a portion of an ice chamber (Column 3, lines 51-59) for making ice (Column 3, lines 51-59); and a cover (35, 36, 37, 56) configured to support the tray (25, Column 4, lines 12-21), wherein the tray (25) comprises a stopper (34) configured to restrict a movement displacement of the tray (25) relative to the cover (37) in a state in which the tray (25) and the cover (35, 36, 37, 56) are coupled with each other (to create a maximum twist by stopping movement once in locked position).
Regarding Claim 3: Gaugler teaches wherein the tray (25) further comprises an extension (26, 33) contacting a first surface (at 35) of the cover (35, 36, 37, 56), and wherein the stopper (34) is provided at a side of the extension (26, 33), and contacts a second surface of the cover (in grooves 43, 44, 48, 52, 49, 46), the second surface intersecting with the first surface (the grooves are within 36, 37).
Regarding Claim 4: Gaugler teaches wherein the tray (25) further comprises a tray body (body of 25) configured to form at least the portion of the ice chamber (see Figure 2), wherein the extension (26, 33) extends from the tray body (see Figure 6, Column 4, lines 6-11), and wherein the stopper (34) is provided on an end of the extension (see Figure 6, Column 4, lines 6-11).
Regarding Claim 6: Gaugler teaches wherein the extension (26, 33) extends from the tray body (body of 25) in a first direction (see Figure 6), and the stopper (34) extends in a second direction intersecting the first direction (see Figure 6).
Regarding Claim 7: Gaugler teaches wherein the cover (35, 36, 37, 56) comprises: a case (56) disposed on a first side of the tray (56 under 25); and a support (flat horizontal of 37) disposed on a second side of the tray (above 25), the second side being opposite to the first side (see Figure 7), and wherein at least a portion of the extension (26, 33) is disposed between the case and the support (see Figure 7).
Regarding Claim 8: Gaugler teaches wherein the extension (26, 33) comprises a first surface (bottom of 33, curve of 26) facing the case (56) and a second surface (top of 33, vertical end of 26) facing the support (flat horizontal of 37), and wherein a portion of the stopper (34) protrudes beyond the first surface of the extension on the first side (34 has a greater diameter than 33), and another portion of the stopper protrudes beyond the second surface of the extension on the second side (34 has a greater diameter than 33, see Figure 8).
Regarding Claim 9: Gaugler teaches an ice maker (evaporator of the refrigeration system not shown, Column 3, lines 24-31) comprising: a tray (25) configured to form at least a portion of an ice chamber for making ice (Column 3, lines 51-59); and a cover (35, 36, 37, 56) configured to support the tray (via 36, 37; 25, Column 4, lines 12-21), wherein the cover (35, 36, 37, 56) comprises a first surface (at 35) and a second surface intersecting with the first surface (the grooves 43, 44, 48, 52, 49, 46, are within 36, 37), and wherein the tray (25) comprises (i) an extension (26, 33) configured to remain in contact with the first surface of the cover (see Figure 4, Column 4, lines 29-32), and (ii) a stopper (34) configured to remain in contact with the second surface of the cover (the grooves 43, 44, 48, 52, 49, 46, are within 36, 37).
Regarding Claim 10: Gaugler teaches wherein the tray (25) further comprises a tray body (body of 25) configured to form at least the portion of the ice chamber (see Figure 2), wherein the extension (26, 33) extends from the tray body (see Figure 6, Column 4, lines 6-11).
Regarding Claim 12: Gaugler teaches wherein the extension (26, 33) extends from the tray body (body of 25) in a first direction (see Figure 6), and the stopper (34) extends in a second direction intersecting the first direction (see Figure 6).
Regarding Claim 13: Gaugler teaches wherein the cover (35, 36, 37, 56) comprises: a case (56) disposed on a first side of the tray (56 under 25); and a support (37) disposed on a second side of the tray (above 25), the second side being opposite to the first side (see Figure 7), and wherein at least a portion of the extension (26, 33) is disposed between the case and the support (see Figure 7).
Regarding Claim 14: Gaugler teaches wherein the extension (26, 33) comprises a first surface (bottom of 33, curve of 26) facing the case (56) and a second surface (top of 33, vertical end of 26) facing the support (flat horizontal of 37), and wherein a portion of the stopper (34) protrudes beyond the first surface of the extension on the first side (34 has a greater diameter than 33), and another portion of the stopper protrudes beyond the second surface of the extension on the second side (34 has a greater diameter than 33, see Figure 8).
Regarding Claim 15: Gaugler teaches an ice maker (evaporator of the refrigeration system not shown, Column 3, lines 24-31) comprising: a tray (25) configured to form at least a portion of an ice chamber for making ice (Column 3, lines 51-59); and a cover (35, 36, 37, 56) configured to support the tray (via 36, 37; 25, Column 4, lines 12-21), wherein the tray (25) comprises: a tray body (body of 25) configured to form at least the portion of the ice chamber (Column 4, lines 12-21), an extension (26, 33) extending from the tray body in a first direction and a stopper (34) projecting from the extension (end of 33) in a second direction intersecting the first direction (see Figure 6, Column 4, lines 6-11).
Regarding Claim 17: Gaugler teaches wherein the cover (35, 36, 37, 56) comprises: a case (56) disposed on a first side of the tray (56 under 25); and a support (37) disposed on a second side of the tray (above 25), the second side being opposite to the first side (see Figure 7), and wherein at least a portion of the extension (26, 33) is disposed between the case and the support (see Figure 7).
Regarding Claim 18: Gaugler teaches wherein the extension (26, 33) comprises a first surface (bottom of 33, curve of 26) facing the case (56) and a second surface (top of 33, vertical end of 26) facing the support (flat horizontal of 37), and wherein a portion of the stopper (34) protrudes beyond the first surface of the extension on the first side (34 has a greater diameter than 33), and another portion of the stopper protrudes beyond the second surface of the extension on the second side (34 has a greater diameter than 33, see Figure 8).
Regarding Claim 19: Gaugler teaches a refrigerator (15) comprising the ice maker (24) of claim 2.
Regarding Claim 20: Gaugler teaches a refrigerator (15) comprising the ice maker (24) of claim 9.
Regarding Claim 21: Gaugler teaches a refrigerator (15) comprising the ice maker (24) of claim 17.
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 5, 11, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaugler et al. (2,772,542), hereafter referred to as “Gaugler.”
Regarding Claim 5: Gaugler fails to teach wherein a length of the stopper is greater than a thickness of the extension. However, absent evidence of criticality, change in shape and/or size is merely design choice and would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art would before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2144.04 IV A. and B.
Regarding Claim 11: Gaugler fails to teach wherein a length of the stopper is greater than a thickness of the extension. However, absent evidence of criticality, change in shape and/or size is merely design choice and would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art would before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2144.04 IV A. and B.
Regarding Claim 16: Gaugler fails to teach wherein a length of the stopper in the second direction is greater than a thickness of the extension. However, absent evidence of criticality, change in shape and/or size is merely design choice and would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art would before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2144.04 IV A. and B.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Oike (5,172,556).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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
Prosecution Insights