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 .
Election/Restrictions
The remarks received 2/5/2026 are persuasive. The restriction requirement is withdrawn. Claims 1-20 are examined.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The following limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses means or a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the means or generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
“buffering member” includes the generic/nonce term “member” coupled with the function of “buffering”. A return to the specification provides a soft or elastic material 410 or 420 as discussed in [0186]-[0189]. Therefor the limitation is interpreted as the same or equivalents thereof.
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, and the second tray assembly is rotatably disposed on the first tray assembly to selectively open the ice making cell,
wherein the first tray assembly is provided with at least one protrusion part that protrudes more than the second tray assembly or the operating trajectory of the second tray assembly to prevent interference with a counterpart located in the opposite direction of the ice maker when the second tray assembly operates (components identified in annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
629
727
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 downward bend).
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) 1-6 and 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al (US 10,309,716) in view of Lee et al (US 11,841,180).
Regarding claim 1, Guo discloses a refrigerator comprising:
a cabinet (figure 1) 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 (4) provided in the installation space of the refrigerator door to produce ice; and
an ice making compartment door (3) that opens and closes the installation space of the refrigerator door, wherein the ice maker comprises:
a first tray assembly that provides a part of an ice making cell for making ice (the ice maker 4 includes an ice tray as shown in the figures); and
a protrusion part (33 and/or 63) provided between the first tray assembly and the ice making compartment door to separate them from each other.
Guo lacks a first and second tray of the ice maker. Lee discloses an ice maker including first and second trays (320 and 380). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have substituted the single tray arrangement of Guo for the two tray arrangement of Lee in order to make spherical ice.
Regarding claim 2, Guo and Lee further disclose the first tray assembly is fixed to an inner wall of the refrigerator door, and the second tray assembly is rotatably disposed in the first tray assembly and selectively opens the ice making cell (figure 60 of Lee shows rotation of the second tray assembly relative to the first tray).
Regarding claim 3, Guo and Lee further disclose the first tray assembly includes: a first tray that provides a part of the ice making cell for making ice; and a tray cover that is coupled to the first tray (Lee discloses a cover 220 of the first tray).
Regarding claim 4, Guo and Lee further disclose the protrusion part (33 of Guo protrudes from the compartment door; 63 protrudes from the ice tray) is formed to protrude from at least one of the opposite surfaces between the ice making compartment door and the first tray.
Regarding claim 5, Guo and Lee further the protrusion part is formed to protrude from the first tray toward the ice making compartment door (63 protrudes from the tray towards the door).
Regarding claim 6, Guo discloses the protrusion part (63) but lacks a gradually narrowing width. The examiner takes official notice that draft angles in injection molding is old and well known. 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 9, Guo and Lee discloses the protrusion part is formed at at least one of the opposite surfaces between the ice making compartment door (33) and the tray cover (provided by Lee, where a protrusion is identified on the cover of Lee as shown below).
PNG
media_image2.png
733
719
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Guo and Lee 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 of Guo).
Regarding claim 11, Guo and Lee 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 figure 59 the second tray does not contact the surface which corresponds to the door in the combination with Guo).
Regarding claim 12, Guo and Lee 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 annotated figure 54 above of Lee the protrusion contacts an upper standoff portion rather than the surface that represents the door in combination with Guo).
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. The examiner takes official notice that draft angles in injection molding is old and well known. 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).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-8 and 13 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 7 and 8 each include a “buffering member” which is interpreted under §112(f) as detailed above. The buffering member includes a soft or elastic material either on the ice making compartment door which is caused to collide with the protrusion part or on the protrusion part. While soft or elastic materials are old and well known to cushion swinging elements, such as a classic door stopper, e.g. US 65,083; US 918,060; US 18,627; or US 2,462,174. However to merely apply a buffering member to the prior art presented above would require the use of impermissible hindsight.
Claim 13 further defines that 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 the operating trajectory of the second tray assembly. Also claim 13 depends from claim 12 which also requires tha the protrusion part does not contact the ice making compartment door. This is no evidence on record to modified Guo or Lee to arrive at the claimed invention.
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
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