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
Claim 1 has been canceled. Claims 2-21 are pending. Claims 12 and 14-17 are amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness 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).
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
In the response to applicant’s arguments, pages 7-10, dated 06/30/2026, the office respectfully disagrees. The arguments do not specifically address the teachings of the base reference, De Vincent. The De Vincent reference clearing teaches a cavity having a differing wall thickness ratio compared to another cavity (see the cavities of tray 56, first cavity has a differing thickness (with insulation, 196) to the other cavities). See MPEP 2111.
The claim limitations as presented are very broad. The claim language does not require one uniform material or structure. Broadly interpreted, the walls of the first cell have a differing thickness to the over cell walls due to the insulation. The first compartment is still an ice forming compartment, and therefore the thickness of the wall of 154 and the insulation 196 differs in thickness ratio to the remaining compartments.
The frame of De Vincent houses a driver motor and that housing under broad interpretation are formed of walls or “plates.” The edges of frame/support 129 contacts and forms some opening for the housing 60 which includes the motor/driver 62. The housing 60 inherently forms an opening that allows for 62 to be mounted therein.
Lastly, the tray 56 of De Vincent is exposed to cold air from cold air hole 54 (see Figure 1).
For the aforementioned reasons, the claims remain 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 2-12 and 14-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Vincent (3,269,139) in view of Suda et al. (JP 2000249437 A, machine translation), hereafter referred to as “Suda.”
Regarding Claim 2: De Vincent teaches an ice maker (58) comprising: a first chamber wall (197 with 196) configured to form a first ice chamber (cavities in 56 are chambers for water to freeze into ice, Column 2, lines 57-61); and a second chamber wall (walls of other cavities in 56 without insulation 196) configured to form a second ice chamber (see plurality of cavities of 56 without 196 in Figure 3), a cold-air hole (air from 54) being configured to allow cold air to flow into the ice maker (58), and wherein a first thickness ratio of the first chamber wall (197 with 196) and a second thickness ratio of the second chamber wall (cavities in 56 without 196) are different from each other (see Figure 3).
De Vincent fails to teach wherein the first ice chamber is located closer to the cold-air hole than the second ice chamber.
Suda teaches a first ice chamber (15d with 16) is located closer to a cold-air hole (air from 7, see Figure 9) than a second ice chamber (other chambers 15d without 16).
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 first ice chamber is located closer to the cold-air hole than the second ice chamber to the structure of De Vincent as taught by Suda in order to advantageously a rearrangement of parts or different configuration in positioning of the parts of the ice maker as Suda shows the insulated portions closer to the source of cold air (see Figures 1 and 9). Furthermore, absent evidence of criticality, change in shape 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.; 2144.04 VI C.).
Regarding Claim 3: De Vincent teaches wherein the first thickness ratio is a ratio of a maximum thickness of the first chamber wall (197 having 196) to a minimum thickness of the first chamber wall (see Figure 3), and the second thickness ratio is a ratio of a maximum thickness of the second chamber wall (walls of other cavities in 56 without 196) to a minimum thickness of the second chamber wall (see Figure 3).
Regarding Claim 4: De Vincent teaches wherein the first thickness ratio (see thickness of first cell 197 with 196, see Figure 3) is greater than the second thickness ratio (see other cells of 56 in Figure 3).
Regarding Claim 5: De Vincent teaches wherein the first chamber wall (197 with 196) includes a first exposed region that is exposed to the cold air introduced through the cold-air hole (54, see Figures 3 and 7), wherein the second chamber wall includes a second exposed region (outer walls of cavities of 56) that is exposed to the cold air introduced through the cold-air hole (54, see Figures 3 and 7), wherein the first thickness ratio is a ratio of a thickness of the first exposed region to a minimum thickness of the first chamber wall (see 197 with 196), and wherein the second thickness ratio is a ratio of a thickness of the second exposed region to a minimum thickness of the second chamber wall (walls of other cavities of 56 without 196).
Regarding Claim 6: De Vincent teaches wherein the first thickness ratio (see thickness of first cell 197 with 196, see Figure 3) is greater than the second thickness ratio (see other cells of 56, in Figure 3).
Regarding Claim 7: De Vincent teaches wherein the thickness of the first exposed region (197 with 196) is greater than the thickness of the second exposed region (other cells without 196).
Regarding Claim 8: De Vincent teaches wherein the first exposed region (cells 197 with 196 mounted) protrudes further than the second exposed region (other cells of 56 without insulation 196, see Figure 3).
Regarding Claim 9: De Vincent teaches further comprising a plate (frame 129) in which a tray opening (space for 56) is formed, wherein the cold-air hole (54) is disposed at a first side of the plate (see Figure 1), wherein the first chamber wall and the second chamber wall are disposed at a second side of the plate (see Figure 3), the second side being opposite to the first side (see Figure 3), and wherein the first exposed region and the second exposed region are regions exposed through the tray opening (see Figure 3).
Regarding Claim 10: De Vincent teaches further comprising: a driver (62 and 145) configured to drive a tray (56) comprising the first chamber wall (197 with 196) and the second chamber wall (other walls of other cavities of 56); and a plate (frame 129) configured to define (i) an opening in which the driver (62 motor not shown) is mounted and (ii) a driver mounted portion (141) on which the driver is seated (145 onto 141), and wherein a distance between the driver mounted portion (141) and the cold-air hole (air from 54) is smaller than a distance between the opening (60 inserted fully into 129) and the cold-air hole (air from 54, see Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 11: De Vincent teaches further comprising: a driver (62) configured to drive a tray (56) and comprising a fixed protrusion (145) protruding from a surface of the driver (145 connects to 62 within 60); and a plate (129) configured to define (i) a driver mounted portion (60, see Figure 3) on which the driver is seated (62, Column 2, lines 62-66), and (ii) a fixed protruding confiner (141) into which the fixed protrusion (145) is inserted (see Figure 3), wherein a distance between the fixed protruding confiner (141) and the cold-air hole is smaller than a distance between the driver mounted portion (60) and the cold-air hole (54, see Figures 1 and 3).
Regarding Claim 12: De Vincent teaches a further comprising: a driver (motor 62 inside 60, not shown) configured to drive a tray (56) and comprising a fixed protrusion (145) protruding from a surface of the driver (62); and a plate (frame 129) configured to define (i) an opening (opening end for 60 to mount to 129) in which the driver (motor 62, not shown) is mounted (see 60, side view mounted into frame 129) and (ii) a fixed protruding confiner (hole in 141 for 145) into which the fixed protrusion (shaft 145) is inserted, wherein a distance between the fixed protruding confiner (hole for 141 for 145) and the cold-air hole (54) is smaller than a distance between the opening (end for 60 to mount into from 129) and the cold-air hole (air from 54, see Figures 1 and 3).
Regarding Claim 14: De Vincent teaches an ice maker (58) comprising: a tray (56) comprising (i) a first chamber wall (197 having 196) configured to form a first ice chamber (see Figures 1 and 3), and (ii) a second chamber wall (other cavities in 56) configured to form a second ice chamber (see Figure 3, cavities without 196); a driver (62 inside 60 not shown) configured to drive the tray (62 is an electric motor, Column 2, lines 62-66); and a plate (frame 129 and housing 60) configured to define an opening (the opening from 60 into 129, back vertical wall of 60 is face of mount opening to 129) in which the driver (62 in 60) is mounted, the cold-air hole (54) being configured to allow cold air to flow into the ice maker (58), and wherein a distance between the tray (56) and the cold-air hole (54) is smaller than a distance between the opening (the opening from 60 into 129, back vertical wall of 60 is face of mount opening to 129) and the cold-air hole (54, see Figure 1).
De Vincent fails to teach wherein the first ice chamber is located closer to a cold-air hole than the second ice chamber.
Suda teaches a first ice chamber (15d with 16) is located closer to a cold-air hole (air from 7, see Figure 9) than a second ice chamber (other chambers 15d without 16).
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 first ice chamber is located closer to a cold-air hole than the second ice chamber to the structure of De Vincent as taught by Suda in order to advantageously a rearrangement of parts or different configuration in positioning of the parts of the ice maker as Suda shows the insulated portions closer to the source of cold air (see Figures 1 and 9). Furthermore, absent evidence of criticality, change in shape 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.; 2144.04 VI C.).
Regarding Claim 15: De Vincent wherein the plate (frame 129) is configured to further define a driver mounted portion (141) on which the driver (62 is in 60) is seated, and wherein a distance between the driver mounted portion (141) and the cold-air hole (54) is smaller (see Figure 1) than a distance between the opening (far end of 60 opening for mounting into 129) and the cold-air hole (54).
Regarding Claim 16: De Vincent teaches wherein the plate (129 and 60) is configured to further define a driver mounted portion (62 is in 60 mounted onto far end of 129) on which the driver (62) is seated, wherein the driver (62) comprises a fixed protrusion (145) protruding from a surface of the driver (see Figure 3, 62 is in 60), wherein the plate (vertical wall of 60 for 145 to be inserted) is configured to further define a fixed protruding confiner (hollow space in 60 for 145) into which the fixed protrusion (145) is inserted (see Figure 3), wherein a distance between the fixed protruding confiner (first vertical hollow space in 60 for 145) and the cold-air hole (54) is smaller than a distance between the driver mounted portion (far end of 129) and the cold-air hole (54).
Regarding Claim 17: De Vincent teaches wherein the driver (62) comprises a fixed protrusion (145) protruding from a surface of the driver (shaft 145 from 62), wherein the plate (vertical plate of 60 for 145 to insert see cross section in Figure 3) is configured to further define a fixed protruding confiner (hollow space for 145) into which the fixed protrusion is inserted (see cross section of 145 and 60), wherein a distance between the fixed protruding confiner (first vertical end of 60 for hollow space for shaft 145) and the cold-air hole (54) is smaller than a distance between the opening (the opening from 60 into 129, back vertical wall of 60 is face of mount opening to 129) and the cold-air hole (54).
Regarding Claim 18: De Vincent teaches an ice maker (58) comprising: a first chamber wall (wall 197 with 196) configured to form a first ice chamber (see Figure 3); and a second chamber wall (other cavities without 196 in 56) configured to form a second ice chamber (see Figures 3 and 7), a cold-air hole (54) being configured to allow cold air to flow into the ice maker (58), wherein the first chamber wall includes a first exposed region (see Figure 7) that is exposed to the cold air (from 54) introduced through the cold-air hole (54), wherein the second chamber wall (walls of cavities without 196) includes a second exposed region (see Figure 7) that is exposed to the cold air introduced through the cold-air hole (54), and wherein a thickness of the first exposed region is greater than a thickness of the second exposed region (see Figure 7).
De Vincent fails to teach wherein the first ice chamber is located closer to the cold-air hole than the second ice chamber.
Suda teaches a first ice chamber (15d with 16) is located closer to a cold-air hole (air from 7, see Figure 9) than a second ice chamber (other chambers 15d without 16).
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 first ice chamber is located closer to the cold-air hole than the second ice chamber to the structure of De Vincent as taught by Suda in order to advantageously a rearrangement of parts or different configuration in positioning of the parts of the ice maker as Suda shows the insulated portions closer to the source of cold air (see Figures 1 and 9). Furthermore, absent evidence of criticality, change in shape 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.; 2144.04 VI C.).
Regarding Claim 19: De Vincent further teaches a refrigerator (see Figure 1, 20) comprising the ice maker of claim 2 (58).
Regarding Claim 20: De Vincent further teaches a refrigerator (see Figure 1, 20) comprising the ice maker of claim 14 (58).
Regarding Claim 21: De Vincent teaches a refrigerator (see Figure 1, 20) comprising the ice maker of claim 18 (58).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Vincent (3,269,139) in view of Suda et al. (JP 2000249437 A, machine translation), hereafter referred to as “Suda,” as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Son et al. (US 2013/0081412 A1), hereafter referred to as “Son.”
Regarding Claim 13: De Vincent modified fails to teach wherein the tray comprises: a first tray configured to form a plurality of first chambers; and a second tray configured to form a plurality of second chambers, wherein the plurality of first chambers and the plurality of second chambers are coupled to each other to form the first ice chamber and the second ice chamber, and wherein the driver is configured to drive the second tray.
Son teaches a tray (11, 12) comprises: a first tray (11) configured to form a plurality of first chambers (113); and a second tray (12) configured to form a plurality of second chambers (141), wherein the plurality of first chambers and the plurality of second chambers are coupled to each other to form the first ice chamber and the second ice chamber (paragraph [0037]), and wherein a driver is configured to drive the second tray (paragraph [0072]).
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 tray comprises: a first tray configured to form a plurality of first chambers; and a second tray configured to form a plurality of second chambers, wherein the plurality of first chambers and the plurality of second chambers are coupled to each other to form the first ice chamber and the second ice chamber, and wherein the driver is configured to drive the second tray to the structure of De Vincent modified supra as taught by Son in order to advantageously provide spherical shaped ice cubes as a desired shape (see Son, paragraph [0037]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hadden (3,640,081).
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 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