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 .
The claims received 7/9/2026 are entered. Claims 2-3 and 12-13 are cancelled.
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) 1, 4-6, 11, and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lippincott (US 2,996,895).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Lippincott discloses an ice maker for a refrigerator appliance, the refrigerator appliance comprising a freezer compartment in which the ice maker is provided, the ice maker defining a vertical direction, a lateral direction, and a transverse direction, the ice maker comprising:
a frame (24);
a mold tray (15) selectively supported by the frame, the mold tray comprising one or more ice forming shapes defined therein;
a motor (22) coupled to the frame and operably coupled with the mold tray to selectively rotate the mold tray with respect to the frame in each of a first direction and a second direction;
a stopper (33) attached to the frame (24) adjacent to the mold tray (15), the stopper being offset from a rotation axis of the mold tray, wherein the stopper is in physical contact with the mold tray (29 is inclusive of the mold tray where the mold tray includes the grid mold 15 and shaft portions) when the mold tray is in a neutral position (“normal position” discussed throughout disclosure); and
a controller (figures 6-7 shows control circuit/algorithm) operably coupled with the motor, the controller configured to perform an operation, the operation comprising:
initiating an ice making cycle after liquid water is supplied to the one or more ice forming shapes (3:41-44)
determining a schedule for performing a reverse rotation of the mold tray during an ice making cycle, the reverse rotation comprising rotating the mold tray in the second direction (4:13-27), wherein the reverse rotation is performed while the liquid water is freezing within the one or more ice forming shapes (MPEP 2111.04; moreover the state of the water, liquid, frozen or a mixture thereof, is within the capability of the ice maker to perform the reverse rotation);
executing the reverse rotation of the mold tray at a designated trigger time based on the determined schedule (4:28-36), wherein executing the reverse rotation comprising restricting a free end of the mold tray, opposite the motor, via the stopper such that the mold tray is torqued as the motor rotates the mold tray in the second direction (surface 32 encounters stopper 33); and
resetting the mold tray to the neutral position after performing the reverse rotation (4:46 the tray returns to the “normal position”).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Lippincott discloses executing the reverse rotation of the mold tray comprises: directing the motor to rotate in the second direction over a predetermined rotation angle (3:5-14).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Lippincott discloses the predetermined angle of rotation is about 20 degrees (3:6-7).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Lippincott discloses the operation further comprises:
determining that the ice making cycle is complete (4:15);
initiating a rotation of the mold tray in the second direction in response to ice making cycle is complete (4:40-41); and
initiating a rotation of the mold tray in the first direction after rotating the mold tray in the second direction (4:42-43).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 9 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lippincott (US 2,996,895) in view of Park (US 6,067,806).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Lippincott discloses the ice maker of claim 8, but lacks detecting a door open time. Park discloses determining that a door of the refrigerator appliance has been open for a predetermined length of time (S618 and S619); and adjusting the time interval ratio after determining that the door of the refrigerator appliance has been open for the predetermined length of time. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Lippincott with a door open detection as taught by Park in order to preclude ice harvesting during a door open condition and to prevent ice discharge during a warm condition.
Claim(s) 7-8, 10, 17-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lippincott (US 2,996,895) in view of Lee (US 5,839,286).
Regarding claims 7-8, 10, 17-18, and 20, Lippincott discloses determining the schedule for performing the reverse rotation of the mold tray comprises: detecting an operating temperature of the freezer compartment (4:15-16); and setting a plurality of designated trigger times for performing the reverse rotation (5:35-67 discusses the time dependence of the repeated steps). Lippincott further discloses determining the plurality of designated trigger times comprises: controlling a temperature at the mold tray (the tray is within the freezer); controlling that the temperature at the mold tray is below a predetermined temperature threshold (threshold set by thermostat switch 45); and initiating a rotation of the motor in the second direction after ice formation (4:13-71).
Lippincott is silent concerning making determinations.
Lee discloses determining the plurality of designated trigger times comprises: detecting a temperature at the mold tray after a predetermined amount of time (with temperature sensor 27); determining that the temperature at the mold tray is below a predetermined temperature threshold after the predetermined amount of time (2:4-14); and initiating a rotation of the motor in the second direction after determining that the temperature at the mold tray is below the predetermined temperature threshold (2:40-45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Lippincott with detecting and determining steps in order to confirm that the ice making process may advance.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, received 7/9/2026, 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Thornbrough (US 6,658,869) microcontroller for ice maker
Lee et al (US 5,881,563) ice rotation control
Lee (US 5,813,238) ice production control
Lee (US 5,675,975) controlling ice production
Kato et al (US 5,163,300) ice production timing
Mawby (US 4,680,943) reverse rotation as shown in figure 16
Shoemaker (US 3,071,933) reverse rotation after water filling
Boarman et al (US 10,378,806) reverse rotation after water filling
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER R ZERPHEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5965. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-4:00 PM.
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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at 5712707740. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER R ZERPHEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
Prosecution Insights