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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the foreign application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 08/16/2024 and 05/02/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 7, 10, and 14-15 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 7 calls for the limitation “the communication holes”, which limitation lacks antecedent basis.
Applicant is encouraged to change the dependency of claim 7 to claim 5; since claim 5 calls for “a plurality of communication holes”.
Claim 10 calls for the limitation “the water droplet”, which limitation lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 10 further calls for the limitation “a separation distance between the bottom surface of the protruding end and the surface of the communication hole is formed to be higher than a height of the water droplet considering the surface tension”; which limitation is indefinite as the limitation is defined by reference to an object and the relationship between the limitation and the object is not sufficiently defined. That is, the examiner cannot readily ascertain the relationship between (i) a separation distance between the bottom surface of the protruding end and the surface of the communication hole and (ii) a height of the water droplet considering the surface tension. The relationship of parts is not based on any known standard for determining a separation distance, but on a device and an element of unspecified build. See 2173.05(b) II; Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 2008) (precedential) and Ex parte Brummer, 12 USPQ2d 1653 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989).
A similar issue is found in claim 14. Applicant is encouraged to address claim 14 accordingly.
Claim 15 calls for the limitation “the insertion tube”, which limitation lacks antecedent basis.
Applicant is encouraged to change the dependency of claim 15 to claim 13; since claim 13 calls for “an insertion tube”.
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 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) 1-9, 12-13, and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim (US 20200158407 A1).
Regarding claim 1:
Kim discloses an ice maker #100 comprising:
a first tray #150 which provides a part of an ice making cell for ice making and having an ice outlet communicating with the inside of the ice making cell;
a second tray #250 which provides another part of the ice making cell for ice making and selectively separated from the first tray;
a tray cover #170 coupled to the first tray and having a communication hole matching the ice outlet of the first tray (Fig. 10-11);
a first ejector #300 including an ejector body #310 that is movably disposed on the tray cover (via #183; [0394]) and an ejector pin #320 that protrudes from the ejector body and passes through the ice outlet to eject ice in the ice making cell of the first tray ([0194-0195]); and
a guide member #181 & #182 provided on the tray cover and guiding the movement of the ejector pin ([0394]).
Regarding claim 2:
Kim further discloses wherein the guide member is provided around the communication hole formed in the tray cover (Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 3:
Kim further discloses wherein the guide member is positioned on at least one radiation direction side with respect to the center of the communication hole to guide the movement of the ejector pin (Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 4:
Kim further discloses wherein the guide member is formed to surround at least a portion of the circumference of the communication hole (Fig. 10 & 22).
Regarding claim 5:
Kim further discloses wherein a plurality of ice making cells and ice outlets are provided in the first tray,
a plurality of communication holes are provided in the tray cover are provided and positioned to coincide with each of the ice outlets, a plurality of ejector pins are provided and positioned to face each of the communication holes (see Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 6:
Kim further discloses wherein the guide member is positioned around at least one of the communication holes to guide the ejector pin that passes through the communication hole and enters the ice outlet (see Fig. 10; ([0194-0195] & [0394]).
Regarding claim 7:
Kim further discloses wherein the guide member is provided around a communication hole formed at the center of the tray cover among the communication holes or communication holes formed at a position symmetrical to each other with respect to the center of the tray cover (see Fig. 8 & 10).
Regarding claim 8:
Kim further discloses wherein at least a part of the guide member has a protruding end that protrudes inward of the communication hole so as to be adjacent to or in contact with the ejector pin when viewed from the moving direction of the ejector pin (see Fig. 8 & 11).
Regarding claim 9:
Kim further discloses wherein the bottom surface of the protruding end formed on the guide member (see upper surface of groove #183) is formed to be spaced apart from the surface of the communication hole (see Fig. 8 & 11).
Regarding claim 12:
Kim further discloses wherein a surface of the guide member facing the ejector pin is gradually inclined to be closer to the ejector pin in the moving direction of the ejector pin (see Fig. 45: surface that #181 points to inclines gradually as it moves up so as to be closer to the ejector pin).
Regarding claim 13:
Kim further discloses wherein the first tray has an insertion tube #154 inserted into the communication hole while providing the ice outlet, and the guide member is formed to be spaced apart from the insertion tube (see Fig. 18, 28, 41, and 51).
Regarding claim 16:
Kim further discloses wherein the end surface of the guide member is formed to be higher than the end surface of the ejector pin when the first ejector does not operate (see Fig. 8, 11, & 41: the uppermost end surface of the guide member is higher that the any end surface of the ejector pin).
Regarding claim 17:
Kim further discloses wherein the guide member is formed at a height that does not contact the ejector body when the first ejector operates (see Fig. 8, 11, & 41: at the uppermost height of the guide member, the guide member does not contact the ejector body when the first ejector operates).
Regarding claim 18:
The subject matter claimed here is substantially similar to that of claim 1. Thus, for sake of simplicity, conciseness, and brevity, please refer to the rejection of claim 1 above for the rejection of claim 20. Only the differences will be addressed.
Kim further discloses a refrigerator #1 comprising a cabinet #2 having a storage compartment ([0133]); a refrigerator door that selectively opens and closes the storage compartment of the cabinet (Fig. 1-2); and
the ice maker #100 provided inside the refrigerator door to make an ice.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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) 11and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20200158407 A1) in view of McCollough (US 8408016 B2).
Regarding claims 11 and 19:
Kim discloses all the limitations, except for wherein the end of the ejector pin is formed to be gradually inwardly inclined toward the end.
In the same field of endeavor, McCollough teaches an ejector pin #48 formed to be gradually inwardly inclined toward the end (via #52; Fig. 3).
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the apparatus of Kim with the end of the ejector pin formed to be gradually inwardly inclined toward the end; in a similar manner as taught by McCollough.
One of ordinary skills would have recognized that doing so would have provided additional support to the ejector pin; thereby, improving the structural integrity of the device.
Claim(s) 15 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20200158407 A1).
Regarding claims 15 and 20:
Kim further discloses wherein the outer circumferential surface of the insertion tube is formed to coincide with the inner circumferential surface of the communication hole (Fig. 18).
Kim does not disclose wherein the inner circumferential surface of the insertion tube is gradually formed to be outwardly inclined toward the end.
However, it has held that the particular shape of a structure is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape of the claimed invention was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the apparatus of Kim with the inner circumferential surface of the insertion tube gradually formed to be outwardly inclined toward the end.
One of ordinary skills would have recognized that doing so would have reduced jamming by reducing interference point between the insertion tube and the ejector pin. Other benefits include funneling water flow to the ice trays so as to reduce splashing.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lee (US 20230349615 A1), Kim (US 11566829 B2), Lee (US 20210341203 A1), Lee (US 20140182325 A1), and Searl (US 4838026 A).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIONEL W NOUKETCHA whose telephone number is (571)272-8438. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri: 08:00 AM - 04:00 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, Frantz Jules can be reached on 571-272-6681. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LIONEL NOUKETCHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights