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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/28/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the Non-Final Office Action 04/07/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status
This Office Action is in response to the remarks and amendments filed on 07/06/2026. The previous objections to the drawings and specification have been withdrawn. Furthermore, the previous 35 USC 112 and double patenting rejections have also been withdrawn. Claims 1-20 remain pending for consideration.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless 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 a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“coupling member” in claims 13-14.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
“coupling member” corresponds to a bolt as described in paragraph [0305] of the specification.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 16 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the first pusher" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
For examination purposes, the phrase “the first pusher” will be interpreted as -- the pusher --
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 1-5 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bertolini et al. (US 20190293335 A1, herein after referred to as Bertolini) in view of Kim et al. (US 20140000304 A1, herein after referred to Kim).
Regarding claim 1, Bertolini teaches an ice maker (ice maker 18 Fig. 2) comprising: a cell (spherical molds M1 and M2 Fig. 5A) in which liquid (disclosed “water” in paragraph [0050]) is phase-changed into ice (paragraph [0050]); a first tray assembly (see below annotated Fig. 4 of Bertolini) including a first tray (upper stationary ice mold 30 Fig. 4), the first tray including a first tray wall (the wall defining ice cavities 31 and 32 Figs. 4-5A) defining a first portion of the cell (upper portion of spherical molds M1 and M2 Fig. 5A); and a second tray assembly (see below annotated Fig. 4 of Bertolini) including a second tray (lower rotatable ice mold 40 Fig. 4), the second tray including a second tray wall (the wall defining ice cavities 41 and 42 Figs. 4-5A) defining a second portion of the cell (lower portion of spherical molds M1 and M2 Fig. 5A), and being disposed to be relatively movable with respect to the first tray (paragraph [0061]).
PNG
media_image1.png
806
875
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Bertolini teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach “the first tray assembly including a first tray case, wherein the first tray case includes: a first tray cover formed as a separate component to the first tray, and a first tray supporter formed as a separate component to the first tray, and wherein the first tray supporter includes: a portion in contact with the first tray, and an opening in which the first tray is disposed”.
However, Kim teaches a first tray assembly (lower plate tray 220 Fig. 6 corresponds to the first tray of Bertolini) including a first tray case (tray cover 226 and tray case 221 Fig. 6), wherein the first tray case includes: a first tray cover (tray cover 226 Fig. 6) formed as a separate component to a first tray (Fig. 6 where tray body 223 corresponds to the first tray of Bertolini), and a first tray supporter (tray case 221 Fig. 6) formed as a separate component to the first tray (Fig. 6), and wherein the first tray supporter includes: a portion (seat part 221a Fig. 6) in contact with the first tray (Fig. 6), and an opening (openings of seat parts 221a Fig. 6) in which the first tray is disposed (Fig. 6) to stably seat the first tray (paragraph [0149]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of Bertolini to include “the first tray assembly including a first tray case, wherein the first tray case includes: a first tray cover formed as a separate component to the first tray, and a first tray supporter formed as a separate component to the first tray, and wherein the first tray supporter includes: a portion in contact with the first tray, and an opening in which the first tray is disposed” in view of the teachings of Kim to stably seat the first tray.
Regarding claim 2, the combined teachings teach wherein a portion of the first tray (recess part 225 Fig. 6 of Kim) passes through the opening of the first tray supporter (Fig. 6 of Kim).
Regarding claim 3, the combined teachings wherein a portion of the first tray (recess part 225 Fig. 6 of Kim) is inserted through the opening of the first tray supporter (Fig. 6 of Kim).
Regarding claim 4, the combined teachings further comprising a bracket (ice maker bracket 250 Fig. 7 of Kim) defining at least a portion (upper portion of the space formed between housing 310 and ice maker bracket 250 Fig. 7 of Kim) of a space (space formed between housing 310 and ice maker bracket 250 Fig. 7 of Kim) that accommodates the first tray assembly and the second tray assembly (Figs. 6-7 where upper plate tray 210 corresponds to the second tray assembly of Bertolini).
Regarding claim 5, the combined teachings wherein the first tray cover is manufactured as a separate part from the bracket (Figs. 6-7 of Kim) and then is coupled to the bracket (Figs. 6-7 of Kim where tray case 221 is coupled to ice maker bracket 250 via mounting part 211).
Regarding claim 18, the combined teachings teach a refrigerator (refrigerator 100 Fig. 3 of Kim) comprising: a storage chamber (refrigerating compartment 112 Fig. 3 of Kim) configured to store food (paragraph [0109] of Kim).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bertolini in view of Kim as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ito et al. (JP2005326035A, herein after referred to as Ito).
Regarding claim 6, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “further comprising a pusher including at least one pushing bar to push out the ice disposed in the cell during an ice separation process, wherein the first tray cover is provided with an opening through which a portion of the pusher passes”.
However, Ito teaches further comprising a pusher (support shafts 11-11A, pushers 5-5A, and eccentric shaft 6 Figs. 5-6) including at least one pushing bar (pusher 5A Fig. 6) to push out ice disposed in a cell (Fig. 6 and paragraph [0016] where the disclosed “ice chamber” corresponds to the cell of Bertolini) during an ice separation process (corresponds to the process described in paragraph [0018]), wherein a first tray cover (see below annotated Fig. 6 of Ito) is provided with an opening (see below annotated Fig. 6 of Ito) through which a portion of the pusher passes (Fig. 6) to release the ice without cracking or chipping (paragraph [0018]).
PNG
media_image2.png
576
741
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “further comprising a pusher including at least one pushing bar to push out the ice disposed in the cell during an ice separation process, wherein the first tray cover is provided with an opening through which a portion of the pusher passes” in view of the teachings of Ito to release the ice without cracking or chipping.
Claims 7-9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bertolini, in view of Kim, and in further view of Boarman et al. (US 20140165598 A1, herein after referred to as Boarman).
Regarding claim 7, Bertolini teaches an ice maker (ice maker 18 Fig. 2) comprising: a cell (spherical molds M1 and M2 Fig. 5A) in which liquid (disclosed “water” in paragraph [0050]) is phase-changed into ice (paragraph [0050]); a first tray assembly (see below annotated Fig. 4 of Bertolini) including a first tray (upper stationary ice mold 30 Fig. 4), the first tray including a first tray wall (the wall defining ice cavities 31 and 32 Figs. 4-5A) defining a first portion of the cell (upper portion of spherical molds M1 and M2 Fig. 5A); and a second tray assembly (see below annotated Fig. 4 of Bertolini) including a second tray (lower rotatable ice mold 40 Fig. 4), the second tray including a second tray wall (the wall defining ice cavities 41 and 42 Figs. 4-5A) defining a second portion of the cell (lower portion of spherical molds M1 and M2 Fig. 5A), and being disposed to be relatively movable with respect to the first tray (paragraph [0061]).
PNG
media_image3.png
806
875
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Bertolini teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach “the first tray assembly including a first tray case, wherein the first tray case includes: a first tray cover formed as a separate component to the first tray, and a first tray supporter formed as a separate component to the first tray, and wherein the first tray supporter includes: a portion coupled to the first tray, and an opening in which the first tray is disposed”.
However, Kim teaches a first tray assembly (lower plate tray 220 Fig. 6 corresponds to the first tray of Bertolini) including a first tray case (tray cover 226 and tray case 221 Fig. 6), wherein the first tray case includes: a first tray cover (tray cover 226 Fig. 6) formed as a separate component to a first tray (Fig. 6 where tray body 223 corresponds to the first tray of Bertolini), and a first tray supporter (tray case 221 Fig. 6) formed as a separate component to the first tray (Fig. 6), and wherein the first tray supporter includes: a portion (seat part 221a Fig. 6) coupled to the first tray (Fig. 6 and paragraph [0049]), and an opening (openings of seat parts 221a Fig. 6) in which the first tray is disposed (Fig. 6) to stably seat the first tray (paragraph [0149]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of Bertolini to include “the first tray assembly including a first tray case, wherein the first tray case includes: a first tray cover formed as a separate component to the first tray, and a first tray supporter formed as a separate component to the first tray, and wherein the first tray supporter includes: a portion coupled to the first tray, and an opening in which the first tray is disposed” in view of the teachings of Kim to stably seat the first tray.
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “the second tray assembly including a second tray case”.
However, Boarman teaches a second tray assembly (second mold portion 404 Fig. 29 corresponds to the second tray assembly of Bertolini) including a second tray case (outer cover 500 and chill ring cover 504 Fig. 29) to provide insulation for the second tray (paragraph [0119]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “the second tray assembly including a second tray case” in view of the teachings of Boarman to provide insulation for the second tray.
Regarding claim 8, the combined teachings teach wherein the first tray includes a first extension wall (plane part 224 Fig. 6 of Kim) extending in a direction from the first tray wall (Fig. 6 of Kim where the wall defining recess part 225 corresponds to the first tray wall of Bertolini), and one or more first coupling holes (Fig. 6 of Kim) are provided in the first extension wall (Fig. 6 of Kim).
Regarding claim 9, the combined teachings teach wherein the second tray case includes a second tray cover (outer cover 500 Fig. 29 of Boarman) and a second tray supporter (chill ring cover 504 Fig. 29 of Boarman), the second tray cover and the second tray supporter being coupled to each other after being manufactured in separate configurations (Figs. 29 and 35 of Boarman).
Regarding claim 19, the combined teachings teach a refrigerator (refrigerator 100 Fig. 3 of Kim) comprising: a storage chamber (refrigerating compartment 112 Fig. 3 of Kim) configured to store food (paragraph [0109] of Kim).
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bertolini, Kim, and Boarman as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Voglewede et al. (US 7185508 B2, herein after referred to as Voglewede).
Regarding claim 10, the combined teachings teach further comprising: a bracket (ice maker bracket 250 Fig. 7 of Kim) defining at least a portion (upper portion of the space formed between housing 310 and ice maker bracket 250 Fig. 7 of Kim) of a space (space formed between housing 310 and ice maker bracket 250 Fig. 7 of Kim) that accommodates the first tray assembly and the second tray assembly (Figs. 6-7 where upper plate tray 210 corresponds to the second tray assembly of Bertolini); and a pusher (ejector pin 475 Fig. 30 of Boarman) including at least one column (Fig. 30 of Boarman) to separate the ice from the second portion of the cell during an ice separation process (paragraph [0120] and Fig. 30 of Boarman).
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “the pusher being installed on the bracket”.
However, Voglewede teaches a pusher (rib 110 Fig. 2 corresponds to the pusher of Boarman) being installed on a bracket (Fig. 2 where deflector 38 and main housing 30 correspond to the bracket of Kim) to aid in expelling the ice cubes (Col. 4 lines 40-47).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “the pusher being installed on the bracket” in view of the teachings of Voglewede to aid in expelling the ice cubes.
Regarding claim 11, the combined teachings teach wherein the at least one column is provided as a shape of a bar (Fig. 30 of Boarman).
Regarding claim 12, the combined teachings teach wherein the at least one column passes through the second tray supporter to contact the second tray in the ice separation process (Fig. 30 of Boarman).
Claims 13-15, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bertolini, Kim, and Son et al. (US 20130081412 A1, herein after referred to as Son).
Regarding claim 13, Bertolini teaches an ice maker (ice maker 18 Fig. 2) comprising: a cell (spherical molds M1 and M2 Fig. 5A) in which liquid (disclosed “water” in paragraph [0050]) is phase-changed into ice (paragraph [0050]); a first tray assembly (see below annotated Fig. 4 of Bertolini) including a first tray (upper stationary ice mold 30 Fig. 4), the first tray including a first tray wall (the wall defining ice cavities 31 and 32 Figs. 4-5A) defining a first portion of the cell (upper portion of spherical molds M1 and M2 Fig. 5A); a second tray assembly (see below annotated Fig. 4 of Bertolini) including a second tray (lower rotatable ice mold 40 Fig. 4), the second tray including a second tray wall (the wall defining ice cavities 41 and 42 Figs. 4-5A) defining a second portion of the cell (lower portion of spherical molds M1 and M2 Fig. 5A); a driver (gear box G Fig. 4), and being disposed to be relatively movable with respect to the first tray (paragraph [0061]).
PNG
media_image4.png
806
875
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Bertolini teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach “the first tray assembly including a first tray case, wherein the first tray case includes: a first tray cover formed as a separate component to the first tray, and a first tray supporter formed as a separate component to the first tray, and wherein the first tray supporter includes: a coupling hole through which a coupling member passes, and an opening in which the first tray is disposed”.
However, Kim teaches a first tray assembly (lower plate tray 220 Fig. 6 corresponds to the first tray of Bertolini) including a first tray case (tray cover 226 and tray case 221 Fig. 6), wherein the first tray case includes: a first tray cover (tray cover 226 Fig. 6) formed as a separate component to a first tray (Fig. 6 where tray body 223 corresponds to the first tray of Bertolini), and a first tray supporter (tray case 221 Fig. 6) formed as a separate component to the first tray (Fig. 6), and wherein the first tray supporter includes: a coupling hole (fig. 6) through which a coupling member (screws Fig. 6) passes (Fig. 6 and paragraph [0056]), and an opening (openings of seat parts 221a Fig. 6) in which the first tray is disposed (Fig. 6) to stably seat the first tray (paragraph [0149]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of Bertolini to include “the first tray assembly including a first tray case, wherein the first tray case includes: a first tray cover formed as a separate component to the first tray, and a first tray supporter formed as a separate component to the first tray, and wherein the first tray supporter includes: a coupling hole through which a coupling member passes, and an opening in which the first tray is disposed” in view of the teachings of Kim to stably seat the first tray.
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “a pusher including at least one column to separate the ice from the first portion of the cell during an ice separation process, the pusher receiving a power of the driver”.
However, Son teaches a pusher (ejecting pins 192 Fig. 3) including at least one column (Fig. 3) to separate ice from a first portion of a cell (Fig. 9 and paragraph [0041] where upper cells 113 correspond to the first portion of the cell of Bertolini) during an ice separation process (Fig. 9 and paragraph [0041]), the pusher receiving a power of a driver (paragraphs [0032] and [0069] where the disclosed “driving mechanism” corresponds to the driver of Bertolini) to push the ice out (paragraph [0041]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “a pusher including at least one column to separate the ice from the first portion of the cell during an ice separation process, the pusher receiving a power of the driver” in view of the teachings of Son to push the ice out.
Regarding claim 14, the combined teachings teach wherein the coupling member passes through a first coupling hole of the first tray (Fig. 6 and paragraph [0149] of Kim).
Regarding claim 15, the combined teachings teach wherein the at least one column is provided as a shape of a bar (Fig. 3 of Son).
Regarding claim 17 the combined teachings teach further comprising a pusher link (pin body 191 Fig. 3 of Son) to which the pusher is coupled (Fig. 3 of Son), wherein, when the pusher link moves, the pusher moves along a guide slot (guide holes 112 Fig. 6 and paragraph [0041] of Son), the guide slot guiding a movement of the pusher (Figs. 8-9 and paragraph [0041] of Son).
Regarding claim 20, the combined teachings teach a refrigerator (refrigerator 100 Fig. 3 of Kim) comprising: a storage chamber (refrigerating compartment 112 Fig. 3 of Kim) configured to store food (paragraph [0109] of Kim).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bertolini, Kim, and Son as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Ito.
Regarding claim 16, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein the first tray cover is provided with a through-hole through which a portion of the pusher passes”.
However, Ito teaches wherein a first tray cover (see below annotated Fig. 6 of Ito) is provided with a through-hole (see below annotated Fig. 6 of Ito) through which a portion of a pusher passes (Figs. 5-6 where support shafts 11-11A, pushers 5-5A, and eccentric shaft 6 correspond to the pusher of Son) to release the ice without cracking or chipping (paragraph [0018]).
PNG
media_image5.png
489
741
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “wherein the first tray cover is provided with a through-hole through which a portion of the pusher passes” in view of the teachings of Ito to allow the pusher to release the ice without cracking or chipping.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 07/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on pages 14-17, that neither Bertolini nor Kim teaches or suggests “wherein the first tray case includes: a first tray cover formed as a separate component to the first tray, and a first tray supporter formed as a separate component to the first tray, and wherein the first tray supporter includes: a portion in contact with the first tray, and an opening in which the first tray is disposed” as recited by claim 1, Applicant is reminded that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In the case at hand, Bertolini teaches an ice maker (ice maker 18 Fig. 2) including a first tray (upper stationary ice mold 30 Fig. 4) and a second tray (lower rotatable ice mold 40 Fig. 4).
The first tray of Bertolini is modified by the teachings of Kim to include a first tray case (tray cover 226 and tray case 221 Fig. 6), wherein the first tray case includes: a first tray cover (tray cover 226 Fig. 6) formed as a separate component to a first tray (Fig. 6 where tray body 223 corresponds to the first tray), and a first tray supporter (tray case 221 Fig. 6) formed as a separate component to the first tray (Fig. 6), and wherein the first tray supporter includes: a portion (seat part 221a Fig. 6) in contact with the first tray (Fig. 6), and an opening (openings of seat parts 221a Fig. 6) in which the first tray is disposed (Fig. 6) to stably seat the first tray (paragraph [0149]).
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive, and the rejections are maintained.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on pages 18-20, that neither Bertolini nor Kim teaches or suggests “wherein the first tray case includes: a first tray cover formed as a separate component to the first tray, and a first tray supporter formed as a separate component to the first tray, and wherein the first tray supporter includes: a portion coupled to the first tray, and an opening in which the first tray is disposed” as recited by amended claim 7, Applicant is reminded that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In the case at hand, Bertolini teaches an ice maker (ice maker 18 Fig. 2) including a first tray (upper stationary ice mold 30 Fig. 4) and a second tray (lower rotatable ice mold 40 Fig. 4).
The first tray of Bertolini is modified by the teachings of Kim to include a first tray case (tray cover 226 and tray case 221 Fig. 6), wherein the first tray case includes: a first tray cover (tray cover 226 Fig. 6) formed as a separate component to a first tray (Fig. 6 where tray body 223 corresponds to the first tray), and a first tray supporter (tray case 221 Fig. 6) formed as a separate component to the first tray (Fig. 6), and wherein the first tray supporter includes: a portion (seat part 221a Fig. 6) coupled to the first tray (Fig. 6 and paragraph [0049]), and an opening (openings of seat parts 221a Fig. 6) in which the first tray is disposed (Fig. 6) to stably seat the first tray (paragraph [0149]).
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive, and the rejections are maintained.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on pages 21-17, that neither Bertolini nor Kim teaches or suggests “wherein the first tray case includes: a first tray cover formed as a separate component to the first tray, and a first tray supporter formed as a separate component to the first tray, and wherein the first tray supporter includes: a coupling hole through which a coupling member passes, and an opening in which the first tray is disposed” as recited by amended claim 13, Applicant is reminded that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In the case at hand, Bertolini teaches an ice maker (ice maker 18 Fig. 2) including a first tray (upper stationary ice mold 30 Fig. 4) and a second tray (lower rotatable ice mold 40 Fig. 4).
The first tray of Bertolini is modified by the teachings of Kim to a first tray case (tray cover 226 and tray case 221 Fig. 6), wherein the first tray case includes: a first tray cover (tray cover 226 Fig. 6) formed as a separate component to a first tray (Fig. 6 where tray body 223 corresponds to the first tray), and a first tray supporter (tray case 221 Fig. 6) formed as a separate component to the first tray (Fig. 6), and wherein the first tray supporter includes: a coupling hole (fig. 6) through which a coupling member (screws Fig. 6) passes (Fig. 6 and paragraph [0056]), and an opening (openings of seat parts 221a Fig. 6) in which the first tray is disposed (Fig. 6) to stably seat the first tray (paragraph [0149]).
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive, and the rejections are maintained.
Conclusion
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 SAMBA NMN GAYE whose telephone number is (571)272-8809. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 4:30AM to 2:30PM.
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, Jerry -Daryl Fletcher can be reached at 571-270-5054. 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.
/SAMBA NMN GAYE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights