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 5/26/2026 are entered.
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) 1-5, 7-8, 11-15, and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Boarman et al (US 10,378,806).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Boarman 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 (110);
a mold tray (70) selectively supported by the frame, the mold tray comprising one or more ice forming shapes defined therein;
a motor (112) 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; and
a controller (figure 13 shows control circuit) 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 (3rd step of figure 3 includes ice formation after the 1st step which includes dispensing water)
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 (8:12-15), wherein the reverse rotation is performed while the liquid water is freezing within the one or more ice forming shapes (4th step of figure 3; also shown in figures 7C and 7D);
executing the reverse rotation of the mold tray at a designated trigger time based on the determined schedule (the oscillation motion shown in figures 7C and 7D includes reverse rotation); and
resetting the mold tray to a neutral position after performing the reverse rotation (position shown in figure 7F is neutral position after oscillation of figures 7C and 7D).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Boarman further discloses a stopper (116 or 150; where a guide pin such as 150 stops movement outside of guided path) attached to the frame adjacent to the mold tray, the stopper being offset from a rotation axis of the mold tray.
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Boarman further discloses the stopper (150) is in physical contact with the mold tray when the mold tray is in the neutral position such that the mold tray is torqued when executing the reverse rotation of the mold tray.
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Boarman discloses executing the reverse rotation of the mold tray comprises: directing the motor to rotate in the second direction over a predetermined rotation angle (20 degree rotation discussed at columns 8 and 12).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Boarman discloses the predetermined angle of rotation is about 20 degrees (a rotation of 20 degrees includes a rotation of 5-20 degrees).
Regarding claims 7-8 and 17-18, Boarman discloses determining the schedule for performing the reverse rotation of the mold tray comprises: determining an operating temperature of the freezer compartment (8:5-12); and determining a plurality of designated trigger times for performing the reverse rotation (10:38-50 describes frequency of oscillation as there are a plurality of trigger times each is determined when determining frequency).
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) 5 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boarman et al (US 10,378,806).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Boarman discloses the predetermined angle of rotation is about 20 degrees (discussed at columns 8 and 12). It has been held that the optimization of a result-effective variable is obvious. In this instance rotation provides for the movement of water leading to clear ice formation. Therefor because rotational angle is recognized as effecting the result of clear ice formation; the value of 5-20 degrees is not a product of innovation but of ordinary skill and is obvious.
Claim(s) 6 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boarman et al (US 10,378,806) in view of Kato (US 5,163,300).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Boarman discloses the operation further comprises: initiating a rotation of the mold tray in the second direction in response to ice making cycle is complete (rotation from oscillation action to neutral position shown in figure 7F); and initiating a rotation of the mold tray in the first direction after rotating the mold tray in the second direction (the ice tray is rotated and inverted as shown in at least figure 12 for harvesting of the ice pieces).
While Boarman describes operation after formation of the ice and thus implicitly determines that the ice making cycle is complete there is no explicit teaching of determining the completion of the ice making cycle. Kato discloses an ice maker which determines that ice making is complete (shown in at least figures 4-6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Boarman with a determination step to confirm completion of the ice making cycle in order to allow the system to advance to harvesting.
Claim(s) 9 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boarman et al (US 10,378,806) in view of Park (US 6,067,806).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Boarman 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 Boarman 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) 10 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boarman et al (US 10,378,806) in view of Lee (US 5,839,286).
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Boarman discloses determining the plurality of designated trigger times comprises: controlling a temperature at the mold tray (8:5-12); controlling that the temperature at the mold tray is below a predetermined temperature threshold (8:5-12); and initiating a rotation of the motor in the second direction after ice formation (harvesting occurs after ice formation as shown in figure 3).
Boarman 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 Boarman with detecting and determining steps in order to confirm that the ice making process may advance.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments 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
Lippincott (US 2,996,895) reverse rotation after water filling
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 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