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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 3-18 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.
Claim 3 recites “an extension part extending from the plate in a direction”. However it is unclear what are the metes and bounds of the claim because the claim does not define what the "a direction". There are multiple directions (i.e. up, down, left, right, etc) the extending part can extend from the plate. Since there is no way of determining what are the metes and bounds of the claim, as best understood, if the prior art comprises the claimed structure, it will be presumed that the to extend in “a direction” (in the different configurations).
Claims 4-18 are rejected based on dependency from a rejected claim.
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.
Claim(s) 2-3, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ishimizu et al (US 20200003470).
Regarding claim 2, Ishimizu teaches an ice maker (1) comprising: a tray (5) defining an ice chamber (9); a casing (7) configured to fix a position of the tray (tray fixed at 49 and 10); and a water supply part (55) configured to guide water to the ice chamber (60 for distributing water, paragraph 0053), wherein the water supply part is fixed to the casing (figs. 5 and 7 illustrates 55 is fixed to 7).
Regarding claim 3, Ishimizu teaches the casing comprises: a plate (48) configured to fix the tray (48 includes 49 to fix the tray 5, figs. 5 and 7); and an extension part extending from the plate in a direction (annotated fig. below illustrates an extension part extending upwards), wherein the water supply part is coupled to the extension part (55 is coupled to the annotated extension part).
PNG
media_image1.png
528
596
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 21, Ishimizu teaches a refrigerator (refrigerator, paragraph 0036) comprising the ice maker of claim 2.
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.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishimizu as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Son et al (US 20130081412).
Regarding claim 20, Ishimizu teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach the tray comprises: a first tray defining a portion of the ice chamber; and a second tray defining the other portion of the ice chamber, and wherein the casing comprises a case and a support that are configured to fix a position of the first tray.
However, Son teaches the tray (11, 12) comprises: a first tray (11) defining a portion (113) of the ice chamber; and a second tray (12) defining the other portion of the ice chamber (141), and wherein the casing comprises a case (annotated fig. below) and a support (annotated fig. below) that are configured to fix a position of the first tray (fig. 2 illustrates the first tray 11 doesn’t move) to efficiently form spherical ice.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the ice maker of Ishimizu to include the tray comprises: a first tray defining a portion of the ice chamber; and a second tray defining the other portion of the ice chamber, and wherein the casing comprises a case and a support that are configured to fix a position of the first tray in view of the teachings of Son to efficiently form spherical ice.
PNG
media_image2.png
540
666
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 4, the subject matter which is considered to distinguish from the closest prior art of record, Ishimizu et al (US 20200003470) in view of Son (US 20130081412). The prior art of record teaches a water supply part and an extension part in contrast to the claimed features of a fixing protrusion that is fixed to the extension part is formed on a surface of the water supply part.
Regarding claim 19, the subject matter which is considered to distinguish from the closest prior art of record, Ishimizu et al (US 20200003470) in view of Son (US 20130081412). The prior art of record teaches an extension part in contrast to the claimed features of wherein the extension part is a vertical extension part vertically extending from the plate.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH J MARTIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3840. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-3:00 CT pm 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, 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.
/ELIZABETH J MARTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763