Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/794,121

ICE MAKER AND REFRIGERATOR

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Aug 05, 2024
Examiner
OSWALD, KIRSTIN U
Art Unit
3763
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
LG Electronics Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
58%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 5m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 58% of resolved cases
58%
Career Allow Rate
283 granted / 485 resolved
-11.6% vs TC avg
Strong +32% interview lift
Without
With
+32.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 5m
Avg Prosecution
60 currently pending
Career history
545
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
54.0%
+14.0% vs TC avg
§102
20.9%
-19.1% vs TC avg
§112
21.9%
-18.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 485 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 § 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. (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, 6-7, 9-10, 12-13, 15, 17, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US 2010/0037646 A1), hereafter referred to as “Lee.” Regarding Claim 2: Lee teaches an ice maker (40) comprising: a tray (42) configured to form at least a portion of an ice chamber for making ice (title); and a cover (411, first and second 123 on bookends of 42 as seen in Figure 3 which is in the embodiment of Figures 11-12) configured to support the tray (see Figures 11-12), wherein the tray (42) comprises a stopper (423) configured to restrict a movement of the tray in a state in which the tray and the cover are coupled with each other (see Figures 11-12). Regarding Claim 3: Lee teaches wherein the tray (42) further comprises an extension (422) contacting a first surface of the cover (411, see Figures 11-12), and wherein the stopper (423) is provided at a side of the extension (see Figures 11-12), and contacts a second surface of the cover (see Figures 11-12), the second surface intersecting with the first surface (incline plane of 416 intersects portion of 411 that contacts 422 and 423). Regarding Claim 4: Lee teaches wherein the tray (42) further comprises a tray body (body of 42) configured to form the at least a portion of the ice chamber (see Figures 11-12), wherein the extension (422) extends from the tray body (see Figures 11-12), and wherein the stopper (423) is provided on an end of the extension (see Figures 11-12). Regarding Claim 6: Lee teaches wherein the extension (422) extends from the tray body (body of 42) in a first direction (see Figures 11-12), and the stopper (423) extends in a second direction intersecting the first direction (incline plane of 416 intersects portion of 411 that contacts 422 and 423). Regarding Claim 7: Lee teaches wherein the cover (411, first and second 123 on bookends of 42 as seen in Figure 3 which is in the embodiment of Figures 11-12) comprises: a case (frame 11) disposed on a first side of the tray (see Figure 3 and outline of 123 on 42 in Figure 12); and a support (first and second 123) disposed on a second side of the tray (portions of 11 and 123 are on opposing sides of tray 42), the second side being opposite to the first side (see Figure 3 which correlates to embodiments of tray 42 in Figures 11-12), and wherein at least a portion of the extension (423) is disposed between the case and the support (423 edge is sandwiched between bookends of 123 on opposite ends of 123 on 42). Regarding Claim 9: Lee teaches an ice maker (40) comprising: a tray (42) configured to form at least a portion of an ice chamber (see Figures 11-12) for making ice (title, paragraph [0033]); and a cover (411, first and second 123 on bookends of 42 as seen in Figure 3 which is in the embodiment of Figures 11-12) configured to support the tray (42), wherein the tray comprises an extension (422) contacting a first surface of the cover (see Figure 11), and a stopper (423) contacting a second surface of the cover (see Figure 11), the second surface intersecting with the first surface (incline plane of 416 intersects portion of 411 that contacts 422 and 423). Regarding Claim 10: Lee teaches wherein the tray (42) further comprises a tray body (body of 42) configured to form the at least a portion of the ice chamber (see 42), and wherein the extension (422) extends from the tray body (see Figures 11-12). Regarding Claim 12: Lee teaches wherein the extension (422) extends from the tray body (body of 42) in a first direction, and the stopper (423) extends in a second direction intersecting the first direction (incline plane of 416 intersects portion of 411 that contacts 422 and 423). Regarding Claim 13: Lee teaches wherein the cover (411, first and second 123 on bookends of 42 as seen in Figure 3 which is in the embodiment of Figures 11-12) comprises: a case (frame 11) disposed on a first side of the tray (bookend of 42); and a support (first and second 123) disposed on a second side of the tray (portions of 11 and 123 are on opposing sides of tray 42), the second side being opposite to the first side (see Figure 3 which correlates to embodiments of tray 42 in Figures 11-12), and wherein at least a portion of the extension (422) is disposed between the case and the support (422 edge is sandwiched between bookends of 123 on opposite ends of 123 and frame 11 on 42). Regarding Claim 15: Lee teaches an ice maker (40) comprising: a tray (42) configured to form at least a portion of an ice chamber for making ice (paragraph [62]); and a cover (411, first and second 123 bookends of 42 as seen in Figure 3 which is in the embodiment of Figures 11-12) configured to support the tray (see Figures 11-12), wherein the tray comprises: a tray body (body of 42) configured to form the at least a portion of the ice chamber (see Figures 11-12); an extension (422) extending from the tray body in a first direction (see Figures 11-12); and a stopper (423) provided at an end of the extension and extending in a second direction intersecting the first direction (see Figures 11-12). Regarding Claim 17: Lee teaches an wherein the cover (411, first and second 123 bookends of 42 as seen in Figure 3 which is in the embodiment of Figures 11-12, frame 11) comprises: a case (frame 11) disposed on a first side of the tray (see Figure 3); and a support (first and second 123) disposed on a second side of the tray (see Figure 3), the second side being opposite to the first side (portions of 11 and 123 are on opposing sides of tray 42), and wherein at least a portion of the extension (422) is disposed between the case and the support (422 edge is sandwiched between bookends of 123 on opposite ends of 123 and frame 11 on 42). Regarding Claim 19: Lee teaches a refrigerator (title) comprising the ice maker (40) of claim 2. Regarding Claim 20: Lee teaches a refrigerator (title) comprising the ice maker (40) of claim 9. Regarding Claim 21: Lee teaches a refrigerator (title) comprising the ice maker (40) of claim 17. Claims 2-4, 6-10, 12-15, and 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ueno et al. (WO 2006/011284 A1), hereafter referred to as “Ueno.” Regarding Claim 2: Ueno teaches an ice maker (title) comprising: a tray (5) configured to form at least a portion of an ice chamber for making ice (see cavities in 5, Figure 4); and a cover (11, 13, 21) configured to support the tray (5), wherein the tray comprises a stopper (end of 5 that contacts 13J) configured to restrict a movement of the tray (5) in a state in which the tray (5) and the cover are coupled with each other (paragraph [0021] of machine translation). Regarding Claim 3: Ueno teaches wherein the tray (5) further comprises an extension (lip ridge of 5) contacting a first surface of the cover (see Figure 4), and wherein the stopper (end on 5 that contacts 13J) is provided at a side of the extension (see Figure 4), and contacts a second surface of the cover (the stopper is also withing the frame 11, 13, and 21), the second surface intersecting with the first surface (see Figure 4). Regarding Claim 4: Ueno teaches wherein the tray further comprises a tray body (body of 5) configured to form the at least a portion of the ice chamber (see ice cavities in 5), wherein the extension (lip ridge of 5) extends from the tray body (see Figure 4), and wherein the stopper (end of 5 that contacts 13J) is provided on an end of the extension (see Figure 4). Regarding Claim 6: Ueno teaches wherein the extension (lip ridge of 5) extends from the tray body (body of 5) in a first direction (see Figure 4, the lip ridge of 5 is a rectangle within 11, 13, and 21), and the stopper (end of 5 that contacts 13J) extends in a second direction intersecting the first direction (see Figure 4). Regarding Claim 7: Ueno teaches wherein the cover (11, 13, 21) comprises: a case (21) disposed on a first side of the tray (see Figure 4); and a support (13) disposed on a second side of the tray (see Figure 8 , 13 in under 5), the second side being opposite to the first side (see Figure 4), and wherein at least a portion of the extension (lip ridge of 5) is disposed between the case and the support (see Figures 4 and 8). Regarding Claim 8: Ueno teaches wherein the extension (lip ridge of 5) comprises a first surface facing the case and a second surface facing the support (see Figure 4, the lip ridge of 5 is a rectangle within 11, 13, and 21), and wherein a portion of the stopper (end of 5 that contacts 13J) protrudes beyond the first surface of the extension (lip ridge of 5) on the first side (the stopper is also withing the frame 11, 13, and 21), and another portion of the stopper (end of 5 that contacts 13J) protrudes beyond the second surface (the stopper is also within the frame 11, 13, and 21) of the extension (lip ridge of 5) on the second side (see Figure 4). Regarding Claim 9: Ueno teaches an ice maker (title) comprising: a tray (5) configured to form at least a portion of an ice chamber for making ice (see ice cavities in 5); and a cover (11, 13, 21) configured to support the tray (paragraph [0021] of machine translation), wherein the tray (5) comprises an extension (lip ridge of tray 5) contacting a first surface of the cover (5 is rectangular and within 11,13), and a stopper (end of 5 that contacts 13J) contacting a second surface of the cover (13J), the second surface intersecting with the first surface (see Figure 4). Regarding Claim 10: Ueno teaches an wherein the tray (5) further comprises a tray body (body of tray) configured to form the at least a portion of the ice chamber (see cavities in 5 for ice), and wherein the extension (lip ridge of tray 5) extends from the tray body (see Figure 4). Regarding Claim 12: Ueno teaches wherein the extension (lip ridge of tray 5) extends from the tray body (body of 5) in a first direction (5 is rectangular and within 11,13), and the stopper (end of 5 that contacts 13J) extends in a second direction intersecting the first direction (the stopper is also within the frame 11, 13, and 21). Regarding Claim 13: Ueno teaches wherein the cover (11, 13, 21) comprises: a case (21) disposed on a first side of the tray (5 is rectangular and within 11,13, 21); and a support (13) disposed on a second side of the tray (see Figures 4 and 8, 13 is underneath 5), the second side being opposite to the first side, and wherein at least a portion of the extension (lip ridge of 5) is disposed between the case and the support (5 is rectangular and within 11,13, 21). Regarding Claim 14: Ueno teaches wherein the extension (lip ridge of 5) comprises a first surface facing the case (5 is rectangular and within 11,13, 21) and a second surface facing the support (5 is rectangular and within 11,13, 21), and wherein a portion of the stopper (end of 5 that contacts 13J) protrudes beyond the first surface of the extension (lip ridge of 5) on the first side (see Figure 4), and another portion of the stopper (end of 5 that contacts 13J) protrudes beyond the second surface of the extension (lip ridge of 5, see Figure 4) on the second side (the stopper is also within the frame 11, 13, and 21). Regarding Claim 15: Ueno teaches an ice maker (title) comprising: a tray (5) configured to form at least a portion of an ice chamber for making ice (see ice cavities in 5); and a cover (11, 13, and 21) configured to support the tray (paragraph [0021] of machine translation), wherein the tray (5) comprises: a tray body (body of 5) configured to form the at least a portion of the ice chamber (see ice cavities in 5); an extension (lip ridge of 5, see Figure 4) extending from the tray body in a first direction (see Figure 4); and a stopper (end of 5 that contacts 13J) provided at an end of the extension (lip ridge of 5, see Figure 4) and extending in a second direction (the stopper is also within the frame 11, 13, and 21) intersecting the first direction (see Figure 4, the stopper is also within the frame 11, 13, and 21). Regarding Claim 17: Ueno teaches wherein the cover (11, 13, and 21) comprises: a case (21) disposed on a first side of the tray (see Figure 4); and a support (13) disposed on a second side of the tray (see Figures 4 and 8, 13 is underneath 5), the second side being opposite to the first side (5 is rectangular and within 11,13, 21), and wherein at least a portion of the extension (lip ridge of 5, see Figure 4) is disposed between the case (21) and the support (5 is rectangular and within 11,13, 21). Regarding Claim 18: Ueno teaches wherein the extension (lip ridge of 5, see Figure 4) comprises a first surface facing the case and a second surface facing the support (5 is rectangular and within 11,13, 21), and wherein a portion of the stopper (end of 5 that contacts 13J) protrudes beyond the first surface of the extension (lip ridge of 5, see Figure 4) on the first side (5 is rectangular and within 11,13, 21), and another portion of the stopper (end of 5 that contacts 13J) protrudes beyond the second surface of the extension (5 is rectangular and within 11,13, 21) on the second side (see Figure 4, the stopper is also within the frame 11, 13, and 21). Regarding Claim 19: Ueno teaches a refrigerator (title) comprising the ice maker (title) of claim 2. Regarding Claim 20: Ueno teaches a refrigerator (title) comprising the ice maker (title) of claim 9. Regarding Claim 21: Ueno teaches a refrigerator (title) comprising the ice maker (title) 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 Lee et al. (US 2010/0037646 A1), hereafter referred to as “Lee.” Regarding Claim 5: Lee 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: Lee 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: Lee 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. Claims 5, 11, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueno et al. (WO 2006/011284 A1), hereafter referred to as “Ueno.” Regarding Claim 5: Ueno 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: Ueno 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: Ueno 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). 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 /LEN TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 05, 2024
Application Filed
Nov 24, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 20, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12584673
REFRIGERATOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12571572
DRAINLESS ICE MAKING APPLIANCE WITH GRAVITY FILTER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12557242
SELF-REGULATED AND SELF-POWERED FLUID MODULE FOR LIQUID COOLING
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12553653
ICE MAKER AND REFRIGERATOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12533930
VEHICLE CONTROL SYSTEM INTO WHICH BATTERY TEMPERATURE MANAGEMENT AND AIR CONDITIONING ARE INTEGRATED
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
58%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+32.1%)
3y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 485 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month