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 4/24/2026 are entered.
Election/Restrictions
The remarks received 2/5/2026 are persuasive. The restriction requirement is withdrawn.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 14-17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or (2) as being anticipated by Lee et al (US 11,841,180).
Regarding claim 14, Lee discloses an ice maker comprising:
a first tray assembly (320) that provides a part of an ice making cell for making ice; and
a second tray (380) assembly that provides another part of the ice making cell for making ice,
wherein the first tray assembly is fixed to a peripheral structure (220), and the second tray assembly is rotatably disposed on a first side of the first tray assembly to selectively open the ice making cell (rotation is about shaft 440),
wherein the first tray assembly is provided with at least one protrusion part that protrudes more than the second tray assembly or an operating trajectory of the second tray assembly to prevent interference with a counterpart located in an opposite direction of the ice maker when the second tray assembly operates, the at least one protrusion part being provided at a second side of the first tray assembly that is opposite to the first side (components identified in annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
666
1090
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, Lee further discloses the first tray assembly includes: a first tray that provides a part of the ice making cell; and a tray cover that is coupled to the first tray to supply water into the ice making cell of the first tray or to guide the flow of cool air to the first tray, wherein the protrusion part protrudes from the first tray assembly toward the second tray assembly (water supply 240 included in cover part, protrusion identified in annotated figure above).
Regarding claim 16, Lee discloses the protrusion part is formed to protrude from the first tray (shown in annotated figure above).
Regarding claim 17, Lee discloses the protrusion part is formed to protrude from the tray cover (shown in annotated figure above).
Regarding claim 20, Lee discloses the end of the protrusion part is bent upward or downward to have a flat part having a height greater than the thickness (protrusion identified above in annotated figure includes a plurality of bends).
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.
Claim(s) 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (US 8,689,578) in view of Choi (US 9,175,896).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses a refrigerator comprising:
a cabinet (column 1 discusses a refrigerator having a storage compartment) having a storage compartment;
a refrigerator door (1) that selectively opens and closes the storage compartment of the cabinet and has an installation space on a wall thereof opposite to the storage compartment;
an ice maker (10/20) provided in the installation space of the refrigerator door to produce ice; and
wherein the ice maker comprises:
a first tray assembly (211) that provides a part of an ice making cell for making ice (211 and 22 combine to form an ice making cell space);
a second tray assembly (22) that provides another part of the ice making cell for making ice (211 and 22 combine to form an ice making cell space); and
a protrusion part (214) provided to extend from the first tray assembly and beyond the second tray assembly.
PNG
media_image2.png
478
687
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Lee discloses an ice maker provided on a refrigerator door (discussed at column 1) but is silent concerning an ice maker compartment door. First it is noted that a refrigerator compartment is relatively warm compared to an ice making space as the first is above the temperature for freezing water and the later is below. It is understood that Lee includes an ice making compartment door in order to maintain this temperature difference, nonetheless Choi is provided. Choi discloses a refrigerator cabinet having a door mounted ice maker (shown in at least figures 1-4). An ice making compartment door (130) that rotates relative to the ice maker (200) and opens and closes the installation space of the refrigerator door.
PNG
media_image3.png
583
684
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Lee with an ice making compartment door as taught by Choi in order to sustain a temperature difference between the ice making compartment and refrigerating compartment and therefor enable the production of ice. Further as shown in the annotated figure of Choi above, when provided, the protrusion part of Lee extends towards said ice making compartment door.
Regarding claim 2, Lee further disclose the first tray assembly is fixed to an inner wall of the refrigerator door (the first tray 211 is fixed by way of the frame 11 to the refrigerator door as is shown in figures 1-2), and the second tray assembly is rotatably disposed in the first tray assembly and selectively opens the ice making cell (shown in at least figures 7 and 8).
Regarding claim 3, Lee further disclose the first tray assembly includes: a first tray (211 as discussed in claim 1 combines with 22 to form an ice making cell space) that provides a part of the ice making cell for making ice; and a tray cover (11) that is coupled to the first tray.
Regarding claim 4, Lee further disclose the protrusion part (214) is formed to protrude from at least one of the opposite surfaces between the ice making compartment door and the first tray (214 protrudes from the first tray).
Regarding claim 5, Lee further the protrusion part is formed to protrude from the first tray toward the ice making compartment door (214 protrudes from the first tray).
Regarding claim 6, Lee further discloses the protrusion part (214) is formed in a structure in which a width thereof gradually narrows toward an end when viewed from a plan view (214 narrows towards the end connecting with 211).
Regarding claim 7, Lee and Choi further disclose the ice making compartment door is provided with a buffer to mitigate impact caused by a collision with the protrusion part (135 of Choi is a buffer that may mitigate impact from a collision).
Regarding claim 8, Lee and Choi further discloses the protrusion part is provided with a buffer (24) to mitigate an impact caused by a collision with the ice making compartment door.
Regarding claim 9, Lee and Choi discloses the protrusion part is formed at at least one of the opposite surfaces between the ice making compartment door and the tray cover (annotated figure of Lee above provides the protrusion part at frame 11).
Regarding claim 10, Lee and Choi disclose the protrusion part is formed to protrude from the tray cover toward the ice making compartment door (protrusion identified in annotated figure of Lee above, by modification the ice maker is provided relative to an ice making compartment door).
Regarding claim 11, Lee and Choi disclose the protrusion part is formed to separate the first tray assembly from the ice making compartment door by a distance such that the second tray assembly dose not contact the ice making compartment door during the rotation operation of the second tray assembly (as shown in at least figures 6-8 of Lee the protrusion part extends beyond the path formed by rotation of second tray 22 thus preventing contact).
Regarding claim 12, Lee and Choi disclose the protrusion part is formed to protrude from the first tray assembly by a distance such that the protrusion part does not contact the ice making compartment door (as shown in at least the annotated figure of Choi above the protrusion part does not contact the ice making compartment door).
Regarding claim 13, Lee and Choi discloses the protrusion part is formed to protrude from the first tray assembly to a position closer to the ice making compartment door than a position closest to the ice making compartment door in an operating trajectory of the second tray assembly (as shown in figures 7-8 of Lee the protrusion part extends farther to the left of the figure, where the compartment door is provided, than does the operating trajectory of the second tray 22).
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (US 11,841,180).
Regarding claim 18, Lee discloses the protrusion part but lacks a gradually narrowing width.
In the previous office action on the merits the Examiner took Official Notice that draft angles in injection molding are old and well known.. In his subsequent reply to this office action, the applicant did not traverse Examiner’s assertion of Official Notice with regard to these elements. Therefore the Official Notice statements by the Examiner regarding these elements are now taken as admitted prior art by Applicant. See MPEP §2144.03(C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided the protrusion part gradually narrow in width towards an end in order to a draft angle to aid in release from a mold during manufacture.
Regarding claim 19, Lee discloses the end surface of the protrusion part is formed to be flat (the protrusion identified in the annotated figure above at claim 14, includes a flat surface at an end thereof).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive or rendered moot by the new grounds of rejection.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 has been amended to recite that the protrusion part is provided at a second side of the first tray assembly, opposite to the first side. While the previously identified protrusion part was at a same side as the rotatable connection between the first and second trays, the instant rejection now relies upon protrusion parts at an opposite side.
Regarding claim 1, the amendments have prompted a new ground of rejection rendering the remarks moot.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lee et al (US 8,302,423) ice maker, protrusion 77b of figure 8.
An et al (US 8,281,613) protrusion 64 of figure 5.
Krause et al (US 2012/0291473) protrusions 206 maintain distance between ice maker and wall
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