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 .
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-10 and 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son et. al. (US 2013/0081412 A1), hereafter referred to as “Son,” in view of Frazier (3,850,008).
Regarding Claim 1: Son teaches an ice maker (10) comprising: a cell (113, 123) in which liquid is phase-changed into ice (water, paragraph [0011]); a first tray assembly (11) including a first tray (body of 11, paragraph [0031]), the first tray (body of 11) defining a first portion of the cell (113); and a second tray assembly (12) including a second tray (14, paragraph [0033]) and a second tray case (15), the second tray (14) including defining a second portion of the cell (141), wherein the second tray case (15) includes a first portion (131, 132) having a shape corresponding to the second portion of the cell (see Figure 6), and a second portion (133) extending from a point of the first portion of the second tray case (15) by a first length (see Figures 5-6).
Son fails to teach wherein the first length of the second portion of the second tray case is greater than a distance from a center of the cell to an outer circumferential surface of the cell.
Frazier a first length of a second portion (76, 78) of a second tray case (30) is greater than a distance from a center of a cell (radius of 53) to an outer circumferential surface of the cell (see Figure 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein the first length of the second portion of the second tray case is greater than a distance from a center of the cell to an outer circumferential surface of the cell to the structure of Son as taught by Frazier in order to advantageously provide improved efficiency of air flow around the ice cells (see Frazier, Column 3, lines 43-53).
Regarding Claim 2: Son modified supra teaches wherein a heat conduction path (channel created by 76 and 78 of Frazier) defined by the second portion (76 and 78 of Frazier) of the second tray case (15 of Son) is greater than a distance from a center of the cell to an outer circumferential surface of the cell (see radius of 14 of Son, and 76, 78 around similar cells 30 of Frazier).
Regarding Claim 3: Son modified supra teaches wherein the first length of the second portion (76, 78 of Frazier) of the second tray case (15 of Son, modified as taught by 76, 78 of Frazier) is greater than a radius of the cell (see 14 Figure 3 of Son).
Regarding Claim 4: Son modified supra fails to teach wherein the second portion of the second tray case includes: a first part having a portion extending in a first direction by a second length; and a second part extending in the same direction as the first part by a third length.
Frazier teaches a second portion (76, 78) of a tray case (case of 30) includes: a first part having a portion extending in a first direction by a second length (see undulations of 76, 78); and a second part extending in the same direction as the first part by a third length (see the curvature of the undulations of 76, 78).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein the second portion of the second tray case includes: a first part having a portion extending in a first direction by a second length; and a second part extending in the same direction as the first part by a third length to the structure of Son as taught by Frazier in order to advantageously provide improved efficiency of air flow around the ice cells (see Frazier, Column 3, lines 43-53).
Regarding Claim 5: Son modified supra fails to teach wherein the second portion of the second tray case includes: a first part having a portion extending in a first direction by a second length; and a third part extending in a direction different from the first part by a third length.
Frazier teaches a second portion (76, 78) of a tray case (case of 30) includes: a first part having a portion extending in a first direction by a second length (see undulations of 76, 78); and a third part extending in a direction different from the first part by a third length (see the curvature of the undulations of 76, 78).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein the second portion of the second tray case includes: a first part having a portion extending in a first direction by a second length; and a third part extending in a direction different from the first part by a third length to the structure of Son as taught by Frazier in order to advantageously provide improved efficiency of air flow around the ice cells (see Frazier, Column 3, lines 43-53).
Regarding Claim 6: Son modified supra fails to teach wherein the first length is a sum of the second length and the third length.
However, Son modified supra teaches the second portion having greater radius and length than an ice tray cell (see Figure 3 of Son, and Figure 5 of Frazier). Thus, the specific lengths/dimensions/proportion of the second portion is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is an improved efficiency of air flow around the ice cells (see Frazier, Column 3, lines 43-53).
Therefore, since the general condition of the claim is disclosed by the prior art reference, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide wherein the first length is a sum of the second length and the third length in order to achieve efficient operation of the system. See MPEP 2144.04 IV A and B; and 2144.05 I, II A and B.
Regarding Claim 7: Son modified supra fails to teach wherein the first length is a sum of the second length and the third length.
However, Son modified supra teaches the second portion having greater radius and length than an ice tray cell (see Figure 3 of Son, and Figure 5 of Frazier). Thus, the specific lengths/dimensions/proportion of the second portion is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is an improved efficiency of air flow around the ice cells (see Frazier, Column 3, lines 43-53).
Therefore, since the general condition of the claim is disclosed by the prior art reference, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide wherein the first length is a sum of the second length and the third length in order to achieve efficient operation of the system. See MPEP 2144.04 IV A and B; and 2144.05 I, II A and B.
Regarding Claim 8: Son modified supra fails to teach wherein the second portion of the second tray case includes: a first part having a portion extending in a first direction by a second length; and a second part and a third part which are branched from the first part, the second part extending by a third length and the third part extending by a fourth length.
Frazier teaches a second portion (76, 78) of a tray case (case of 30) includes: a first part having a portion extending in a first direction by a second length (see undulations of 76, 78); and a second part and a third part which are branched from the first part (see curves of 76, 78), the second part extending by a third length and the third part extending by a fourth length (see the curvature of the undulations of 76, 78).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein the second portion of the second tray case includes: a first part having a portion extending in a first direction by a second length; and a second part and a third part which are branched from the first part, the second part extending by a third length and the third part extending by a fourth length to the structure of Son as taught by Frazier in order to advantageously provide improved efficiency of air flow around the ice cells (see Frazier, Column 3, lines 43-53).
Regarding Claim 9: Son modified supra fails to teach wherein the first length is a sum of the second length, the third length and the fourth length.
However, Son modified supra teaches the second portion having greater radius and length than an ice tray cell (see Figure 3 of Son, and Figure 5 of Frazier). Thus, the specific lengths/dimensions/proportion of the second portion is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is an improved efficiency of air flow around the ice cells (see Frazier, Column 3, lines 43-53).
Therefore, since the general condition of the claim is disclosed by the prior art reference, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide wherein the first length is a sum of the second length, the third length and the fourth length in order to achieve efficient operation of the system. See MPEP 2144.04 IV A and B; and 2144.05 I, II A and B.
Regarding Claim 10: Son modified supra teaches wherein the second tray case (15 f Son) includes a second tray cover (13 of Son) and a second tray supporter (21, 22 of Son).
Regarding Claim 12: Son modified supra teaches wherein the second tray cover (13 of Son) and the second tray supporter (21, 22 of Son) are coupled to each other after being manufactured in separate configurations (assembly of the elements, see Figure 3 of Son).
Regarding Claim 13: Son teaches wherein the second tray supporter (21, 22) includes: a first portion (see element 21) supporting the second tray (12); and a second portion (see element 22) extending from a predetermined point of the first portion of the second tray supporter (21,22) by a first length (see Figure 3) and wherein the first length of the second portion of the second tray supporter (21,22) is greater than a distance from a center of the cell to an outer circumferential surface of the cell (radius of 14 for ice cells, see Figure 3).
Regarding Claim 14: Son teaches an ice maker (10) comprising: a cell (113, 141) in which liquid is phase-changed into ice (water, paragraph [0011]); a first tray assembly (11) including a first tray, the first tray defining a first portion of the cell (113); and a second tray assembly (12, Figure 3, paragraph [0033]) including a second tray (14, see Figure 3, paragraph [0033]) and a second tray case (15), the second tray (14) including defining a second portion of cell (141), wherein the second tray case (15) includes a first portion (radius of 141, 131, 132) having a shape corresponding to the second portion of the cell (see Figure 6), and a second portion (133) extending from a point of the first portion (131, 132).
Son fails to teach wherein the second portion of the second tray case includes a first part extending in a first direction, and a third part extending in a second direction different from the first part, and wherein the second direction is a direction away from the first portion of the cell.
Frazier teaches a second portion (76, 78) of a second tray case (30) includes a first part extending in a first direction (see undulations of 76, 78), and a third part extending in a second direction different from the first part (see the multiple curves of curvature of the undulations of 76, 78), and wherein the second direction is a direction away from a first portion of a cell (cavities 52, see Figure 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein the second portion of the second tray case includes a first part extending in a first direction, and a third part extending in a second direction different from the first part, and wherein the second direction is a direction away from the first portion of the cell to the structure of Son as taught by Frazier in order to advantageously provide improved efficiency of air flow around the ice cells (see Frazier, Column 3, lines 43-53).
Regarding Claim 15: Son teaches an ice maker (10) comprising: a cell (113, 141) in which liquid is phase-changed into ice (water, paragraph [0011]); a first tray assembly (11) including a first tray (see Figure 3, paragraph [0031]), the first tray defining a first portion of the cell (113); and a second tray assembly (12) including a second tray (14, paragraph [0031]) and a second tray case (15, see Figure 3, paragraph [0031]), the second tray (14, see Figure 3, paragraph [0033]) including defining a second portion of cell (141), wherein the second tray case includes a first portion (radius of 141, 131, 132) having a shape corresponding to the second portion of the cell (see Figure 6), and a second portion (133) extending from a point of the first portion (131, 132).
Son fails to teach wherein the second portion of the second tray case includes a first part extending in a first direction, and a third part extending in a second direction different from the first part, and wherein the second direction is a direction away from the first tray.
Frazier teaches a second portion (76, 78) extending from a point of a first portion (walls of 30), wherein the second portion (76, 78) of a tray case (30) includes a first part extending in a first direction (see undulations of 76, 78), and a third part extending in a second direction different from the first part (see the curvature of the undulations of 76, 78), and wherein the second direction is a direction away from the first tray (see the multiple curves of curvature of the undulations of 76, 78).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a second portion extending from a point of the first portion, wherein the second portion of the second tray case includes a first part extending in a first direction, and a third part extending in a second direction different from the first part, and wherein the second direction is a direction away from the first tray to the structure of Son as taught by Frazier in order to advantageously provide improved efficiency of air flow around the ice cells (see Frazier, Column 3, lines 43-53).
Regarding Claim 16: Son modified supra teaches wherein the first tray assembly (11 of Son) includes a first tray case (see frame 111 of 11 of Son), and the second direction is a direction away from the first tray case (see Figure 3 of Son).
Regarding Claim 17: Son modified supra teaches wherein the first tray assembly (11 of Son) includes a first tray case (see frame 111 of 11 of Son), and the second direction is a direction away from the first tray case (see Figure 3 of Son).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son et al. (US 2013/0081412 A1), hereafter referred to as “Son,” in view of Frazier (3,850,008), as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Hunter (US 2012/0031138 A1).
Regarding Claim 11: Son modified supra fails to teach wherein the second tray cover and the second tray supporter are integrally formed.
Hunter teaches a tray cover and a tray supporter are integrally formed (paragraph [0039]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein the second tray cover and the second tray supporter are integrally formed to the structure of Son modified supra as taught by Hunter in order to advantageously provide known ways or manufacture and/or assembly (see Hunter, paragraph [0039]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son et al. (US 2013/0081412 A1), hereafter referred to as “Son,” in view of Frazier (3,850,008), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2010/0018226 A1), hereafter referred to as “Kim.”
Regarding Claim 18: Son modified supra teaches a refrigerator (paragraph [0014] of Son) comprising: a storage chamber (paragraph [0014] of Son) configured to store food (paragraph [0014]); and an ice maker (10 of Son) of claim 1 (see claim 1 above).
Son modified supra fails to teach wherein the ice maker includes a heater provided to supply heat to the cell, the heater is operated while the ice is being formed so that gas bubbles dissolved in the liquid within the cell move from a portion of space where the liquid that has phase-changed into the ice to another portion of the space where the liquid is in a fluid state.
Kim teaches an ice maker (100) includes a heater (200) provided to supply heat to a cell (120), the heater (200) is operated while the ice is being formed so that gas bubbles dissolved in the liquid within the cell move from a portion of space where the liquid that has phase-changed into the ice to another portion of the space where the liquid is in a fluid state (paragraph [0030]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein the ice maker includes a heater provided to supply heat to the cell, the heater is operated while the ice is being formed so that gas bubbles dissolved in the liquid within the cell move from a portion of space where the liquid that has phase-changed into the ice to another portion of the space where the liquid is in a fluid state to the structure of Son modified supra as taught by Kim in order to advantageously make transparent ice (see Kim, paragraph [0030]).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son et al. (US 2013/0081412 A1), hereafter referred to as “Son,” in view of Frazier (3,850,008), as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2010/0018226 A1), hereafter referred to as “Kim.”
Regarding Claim 19: Son modified supra teaches a refrigerator (paragraph [0014] of Son) comprising: a storage chamber (paragraph [0014] of Son) configured to store food (paragraph [0014]); and an ice maker (10 of Son) of claim 14 (see claim 14 above).
Son modified supra fails to teach wherein the ice maker includes a heater provided to supply heat to the cell, the heater is operated while the ice is being formed so that gas bubbles dissolved in the liquid within the cell move from a portion of space where the liquid that has phase-changed into the ice to another portion of the space where the liquid is in a fluid state.
Kim teaches an ice maker (100) includes a heater (200) provided to supply heat to a cell (120), the heater (200) is operated while the ice is being formed so that gas bubbles dissolved in the liquid within the cell move from a portion of space where the liquid that has phase-changed into the ice to another portion of the space where the liquid is in a fluid state (paragraph [0030]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein the ice maker includes a heater provided to supply heat to the cell, the heater is operated while the ice is being formed so that gas bubbles dissolved in the liquid within the cell move from a portion of space where the liquid that has phase-changed into the ice to another portion of the space where the liquid is in a fluid state to the structure of Son modified supra as taught by Kim in order to advantageously make transparent ice (see Kim, paragraph [0030]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son et al. (US 2013/0081412 A1), hereafter referred to as “Son,” in view of Frazier (3,850,008), as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2010/0018226 A1), hereafter referred to as “Kim.”
Regarding Claim 20: Son modified supra teaches a refrigerator (paragraph [0014] of Son) comprising: a storage chamber (paragraph [0014] of Son) configured to store food (paragraph [0014]); and an ice maker (10 of Son) of claim 15 (see claim 15 above).
Son modified supra fails to teach wherein the ice maker includes a heater provided to supply heat to the cell, the heater is operated while the ice is being formed so that gas bubbles dissolved in the liquid within the cell move from a portion of space where the liquid that has phase-changed into the ice to another portion of the space where the liquid is in a fluid state.
Kim teaches an ice maker (100) includes a heater (200) provided to supply heat to a cell (120), the heater (200) is operated while the ice is being formed so that gas bubbles dissolved in the liquid within the cell move from a portion of space where the liquid that has phase-changed into the ice to another portion of the space where the liquid is in a fluid state (paragraph [0030]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein the ice maker includes a heater provided to supply heat to the cell, the heater is operated while the ice is being formed so that gas bubbles dissolved in the liquid within the cell move from a portion of space where the liquid that has phase-changed into the ice to another portion of the space where the liquid is in a fluid state to the structure of Son modified supra as taught by Kim in order to advantageously make transparent ice (see Kim, paragraph [0030]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Rundell (2,471,655).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIRSTIN U OSWALD whose telephone number is (571)270-3557. The examiner can normally be reached 10 a.m.- 6 p.m. M-F.
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, Len Tran can be reached at 571-272-1184. 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.
/KIRSTIN U OSWALD/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/ERIC S RUPPERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763