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 .
The amendment filed on May 5, 2026 has been entered. Claims 21-28, 32, 41-51 remain pending in the application.
It is noted that Applicant’s amendments to claims 28 and 48 did not include all of the subject matter indicated as allowable in the Non-final Office action. For example, neither claim requires the first tray and second tray since that subject matter has been deleted from claim 21 and not included in the amendment of claim 28. Accordingly, claims 28-31 and 38-40 are far broader than when presented as of the date of the Non-final Office action. As such, claims 28-31 and 38-40 are no longer found to be allowable and are rejected in this office action due solely to Applicant’s amendment to the claims which did not incorporate all of the indicated allowable subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 21-24, 28, 41-44, and 46-51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2,182,454 to Sherman, hereinafter referred to as Sherman.
In reference to claim 21, Sherman discloses the claimed invention including:
A tray (6) defining an ice chamber (16),
wherein the tray (6) comprises a convex part (8) that is made of a flexible material (soft rubber),
wherein the convex part is configured to change its shape (as seen in figures 7 and 8),
wherein the convex part is configured to protrude toward an inside of the ice chamber (16) in a convex shape at an inner surface thereof of the convex part facing the ice chamber (as seen in figure 8), wherein the convex shape corresponds to an original shape of the convex part (the orientation of the convex part 8 as seen in figure 8 is defined as the original shape. Note that there is nothing in the claims that structurally differentiates what is or is not considered an “original shape”, as such it is reasonable to define the orientation of the convex part (8) as seen in figure 8 as the claimed original shape), and
wherein the convex part (8) is configured to, based on the convex part being in the original shape (as seen in figure 8), define (i) a recess at an outer surface thereof of the convex part and (ii) a vacant space at the recess (see below for the examiners definition of the recess).
PNG
media_image1.png
424
434
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In reference to claim 22, Sherman discloses the claimed invention including:
the convex part (8) is configured to be transformed to a state that the ice chamber is defined as a final shape (as defined in figure 7) without the convex shape inside of the ice chamber based on an ice making process being finished.
In reference to claim 23, Sherman discloses the claimed invention including:
the convex part (8) is configured to be deformable from a first state (figure 8) to a second state (figure 7) in a shape, and wherein the convex shape defines the first state (figure 8).
In reference to claim 24, Sherman discloses the claimed invention including:
the convex part (8) is configured to protrude away from the ice chamber at the second state (figure 7) in which the ice chamber is configured to expand to the recess and form a final shape during an ice making process. It appears that the language of claim 24 is a recitation of what the apparatus is configured to do and not what the apparatus is as there are no structural attributes of the interrelated components except for the requirement that the tray is capable of expanding to the recess during an ice making process. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function, see MPEP 2114 (II). Since the device of Sherman teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim and is capable of expanding to the recess and form a final shape during an ice making process, the device of Sherman meets the claimed limitations of being configured to do so. There is no structural difference between the device of Sherman and the device of Applicant’s claim 24.
In reference to claim 28, Sherman discloses the claimed invention including:
An ice maker comprising:
a tray (6) defining an ice chamber (16),
wherein the tray comprises a convex part (19), see figures 11-15,
wherein the convex part is configured to protrude toward an inside of the ice chamber in a convex shape at an inner surface of the convex part facing the ice chamber (as seen in figure 15), and
wherein tray further comprises a stepped portion (18) that protrudes outward (in a left and right direction) from an outer surface of the tray (16) and surrounds the convex part (as seen especially in figure 15).
In reference to claim 41, Sherman discloses the claimed invention including:
the convex part (19) is configured to be deformable from a first state (as seen in figure 15) to a second state (as seen in figure 11, 13, and 14), and wherein the convex shape defines the first state.
In reference to claim 42, Sherman discloses the claimed invention including:
the convex part (19) is configured to protrude away from the ice chamber in the second state (as seen in figure 11, 13, and 14) in which the ice chamber is configured to expand to form a final shape during an ice making process. It appears that some of the language of claim 42 is a recitation of what the apparatus is configured to do and not what the apparatus is as there are no structural attributes of the interrelated components except for the requirement that the tray is capable of expanding to the recess during an ice making process. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function, see MPEP 2114 (II). Since the device of Sherman teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim and is capable of expanding to the recess and form a final shape during an ice making process, the device of Sherman meets the claimed limitations of being configured to do so. There is no structural difference between the device of Sherman and the device of Applicant’s claim 42.
In reference to claim 43, Sherman discloses the claimed invention including:
the stepped portion (18) is configured to be a boundary of transformation of the convex part based on the convex part changing from the first state to the second state. Element (18) can reasonably be considered a boundary since it surrounds the deformable part (19).
In reference to claim 44, Sherman discloses the claimed invention including:
an upper end of the convex part (19) is positioned above the stepped portion (18) based on the convex part being in the first state (see figure 15), and
wherein a lower end of the convex part (19) is positioned below the stepped portion (18) based on the convex part being in the second state (see figures 11, 13, and 14).
In reference to claim 46, Sherman discloses the claimed invention including:
a support (frame 13, see figure 2) configured to support the tray and comprising an opening (see below for the examiner’s definition of the opening) that is configured to face the convex part and defines a space to receive the convex part based on the convex part changing from a first state to a second state (see annotated reference below where the opening is defined between elements 13 which are shown to face the convex part),
wherein the convex shape defines the first state (as seen in figure 15), and
wherein, in the second state, the convex part is configured to protrude away from the ice chamber to define a concave shape (as seen in figures 11, 13, and 14).
PNG
media_image2.png
211
265
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In reference to claim 47, Sherman discloses the claimed invention including:
the stepped portion (18) is positioned on a peripheral area of the opening (see annotated reference above with respect to claim 46).
In reference to claim 48, Sherman discloses the claimed invention including:
An ice maker comprising:
a tray (16) configured to define an ice chamber (6),
wherein the tray comprises a convex part (8) configured to deform from a first (figure 8) state to a second state (figure 7),
wherein, in the first state of the convex part (8, figure 7), the convex part is configured to protrude toward an inside of the ice chamber (16) in a convex shape at an inner surface of the convex part facing the ice chamber (see figure 8),
wherein the convex shape is configured to include a recess (see annotated reference above with respect to claim 21),
wherein, in the second state (figure 7) of the convex part, the convex part is configured to protrude away from the ice chamber (16) such that the ice chamber expands into the recess and forms a final shape upon completion of ice making, and
wherein the convex part (8) is configured to remain in the first state from completion of ice separating to completion of water supply, and the convex part is configured to change from the first state to the second state during a period from completion of the water supply to completion of the ice making. It appears that some of the language of claim 48 is a recitation of what the apparatus is configured to do and not what the apparatus is as there are no structural attributes of the interrelated components except for the requirement that the tray is capable of expanding to the recess during an ice making process and remain in the first state from completion of ice separating to completion of water supply, and the convex part is configured to change from the first state to the second state during a period from completion of the water supply to completion of the ice making. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function, see MPEP 2114 (II). Since the device of Sherman teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim and is capable of expanding to the recess during an ice making process and remain in the first state from completion of ice separating to completion of water supply, and the convex part is configured to change from the first state to the second state during a period from completion of the water supply to completion of the ice making meets the claimed limitations of being configured to do so. There is no structural difference between the device of Sherman and the device of Applicant’s claim 48.
In reference to claims 49-51, Sherman discloses the claimed invention including:
A refrigerator (ice forming machines, see page 2 column 1 lines 67-71) comprising the ice maker of claims 21, 28, and 48. Note that the disclosed ice forming machines will include refrigeration components which drop the temperature of the water to below freezing which can reasonably be considered a refrigerator.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 25, 26, and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sherman as modified.
In reference to claim 25, Sherman as modified renders the claimed invention obvious.
Sherman fails to disclose the shape of the convex part in the second state is configured to form a concave shape inside of the ice chamber such that the ice chamber is configured to be spherical when changing from the first state to the second state. It is noted that the only difference between Applicant’s claimed invention and the disclosed apparatus of Sherman is a recitation of the particular shape of the ice chamber and convex shape in the second state. The differences are merely a change in shape or form. There is no evidence of record that the shape of the ice chamber is significant in any way or that changing the shape as claimed would do anything other than produce predictable results (i.e. shape of the final ice cube). Further it appears that the apparatus of Sherman would work equally well if the shape of the ice chamber was any shape, see page 1 column 2 lines 25-29 where Sherman teaches that the shape of the depression not necessary. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to modify Sherman such that the shape of the convex part in the second state is configured to form a concave shape inside of the ice chamber such that the ice chamber is configured to be spherical when changing from the first state to the second state, since it has been held the configuration of a claimed apparatus was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant, see MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(B).
In reference to claim 26, Sherman as modified renders the claimed invention obvious.
Sherman fails to disclose the recess at the outer surface of the convex part is configured to disappear based on the convex part changing into the second state so that a circumference the ice chamber is configured to form a continuous line without a bent point. It is noted that the only difference between Applicant’s claimed invention and the disclosed apparatus of Sherman is a recitation of the particular shape of the ice chamber and convex shape in the second state. The differences are merely a change in shape or form. There is no evidence of record that the shape of the ice chamber is significant in any way or that changing the shape as claimed would do anything other than produce predictable results (i.e. shape of the final ice cube). Further it appears that the apparatus of Sherman would work equally well if the shape of the ice chamber was any shape, see page 1 column 2 lines 25-29 where Sherman teaches that the shape of the depression not necessary. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to modify Sherman such that the shape of the recess at the outer surface of the convex part is configured to disappear based on the convex part changing into the second state so that a circumference the ice chamber is configured to form a continuous line without a bent point, since it has been held the configuration of a claimed apparatus was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant, see MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(B).
In reference to claim 45, Sherman as modified renders the claimed invention obvious.
Sherman discloses in the first state of the convex part (19, figure 15), an inner surface of the tray at which the convex part is formed is positioned closer to a center of the ice chamber than an inner surface of the tray at which the stepped portion is formed (as seen in figure 15), but fails to disclose wherein, in the second state of the convex part, the inner surface of the tray at which the convex part is formed and the inner surface of the tray at which the stepped portion is formed are positioned substantially at an equal distance from the center of the ice chamber.
It is noted that the only difference between Applicant’s claimed invention and the disclosed apparatus of Sherman is a recitation of the particular shape of the ice chamber and convex shape in the second state. The differences are merely a change in shape or form. There is no evidence of record that the shape of the ice chamber is significant in any way or that changing the shape as claimed would do anything other than produce predictable results (i.e. shape of the final ice cube). Further it appears that the apparatus of Sherman would work equally well if the shape of the ice chamber was any shape, see page 1 column 2 lines 25-29 where Sherman teaches that the shape of the depression not necessary. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to modify Sherman such that in the second state of the convex part, the inner surface of the tray at which the convex part is formed and the inner surface of the tray at which the stepped portion is formed are positioned substantially at an equal distance from the center of the ice chamber, since it has been held the configuration of a claimed apparatus was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant, see MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(B).
Claims 27 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sherman as modified by US 2014/0182325 to Lee et al., hereinafter referred to as Lee.
In reference to claim 27, Sherman as modified by Lee discloses the claimed invention.
Sherman fails to disclose the tray comprises: a first tray defining a first portion of the ice chamber, and a second tray defining a second portion of the ice chamber wherein the first tray comprises a first chamber wall that defines the first portion of the ice chamber, and the second tray comprises a second chamber wall that defines the second portion of the ice chamber, wherein the second chamber wall is configured to face the first chamber wall such that the first chamber wall and the second chamber wall define the ice chamber and wherein the convex part is formed at a bottom portion of the second chamber wall.
Lee teaches that in the art of ice making that it is a known method to provide an ice maker with a first tray (11) defining a first portion of the ice chamber, and a second tray (12) defining a second portion of the ice chamber wherein the first tray comprises a first chamber wall that defines the first portion of the ice chamber, and the second tray comprises a second chamber wall that defines the second portion of the ice chamber, wherein the second chamber wall is configured to face the first chamber wall such that the first chamber wall and the second chamber wall define the ice chamber (as seen in figure 8) and wherein the convex part is formed at a bottom portion of the second chamber wall (as seen in figure 9). This is strong evidence that modifying Sherman as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e., provide for spherical shaped ice cubes). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, to modify Sherman by Lee such that, the tray comprises: a first tray defining a first portion of the ice chamber, and a second tray defining a second portion of the ice chamber wherein the first tray comprises a first chamber wall that defines the first portion of the ice chamber, and the second tray comprises a second chamber wall that defines the second portion of the ice chamber, wherein the second chamber wall is configured to face the first chamber wall such that the first chamber wall and the second chamber wall define the ice chamber and wherein the convex part is formed at a bottom portion of the second chamber wall, since all claimed elements were known in the art, and one having ordinary skill in the art could have modified the prior art as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded a predictable result of forming spherical ice pieces.
In reference to claim 32, Sherman as modified by Lee discloses the claimed invention.
Sherman discloses a support (17) that defines a chamber accommodation recess configured to face and contact the second chamber wall (space surrounding 19, see Sherman figure 15, when modified by Lee supra, the combination would result in the recess facing the bottom, second chamber wall), wherein the chamber accommodation recess is configured to rigidly support the second chamber wall, and wherein the chamber accommodation recess comprises an opening that faces the convex part and defines a space to receive the convex part based on the convex part changing from the first state to the second state (see figures 14-15).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 5, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Lee (US 2014/0182325) are moot since the present rejection does not include Lee in any of the rejections such that the arguments would apply.
Applicant argues beginning on page 8 of the response that Sherman fails to disclose the original shape does not define a recess at an outer surface of the depression and a vacant space and refers to figure 13 and 14. This is not found persuasive as there is nothing in the claim language, or Applicant’s disclosure that would prevent the configuration of the depression of Sherman figure 15 from being defined as the original shape. Thus, when the original shape as claimed is defined as the shape illustrated in figure 15, then Sherman does indeed teach the claimed recess and vacant space.
With respect to claims 48-51 Applicant argues that none of the prior art discloses the convex part is configured to remain in the first state from completion of ice separating to completion of water supply, and the convex part is configured to change from the first state to the second state during a period from completion of the water supply to completion of the ice making. However, this language is a recitation of what the apparatus is configured to do and not what the apparatus is as there are no structural attributes of the interrelated components except for the requirement that the recess is capable of remaining in the first state from completion of ice separating to completion of water supply, and the convex part is configured to change from the first state to the second state during a period from completion of the water supply to completion of the ice making. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function, see MPEP 2114 (II). Since the device of Sherman teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim and is capable of expanding to the recess and form a final shape during an ice making process, the device of Sherman meets the claimed limitations of being configured to do so. There is no structural difference between the device of Sherman and the device of Applicant’s claims. Applicant does not disclose any structure different from the structure disclosed by Sherman for performing this function. Both Applicant’s invention and the invention of Sherman include flexible elastic material in the recess portion. There is nothing in Applicant’s specification which suggest that only certain flexible materials would operate as claimed and in particular, Applicant does not define what structure is or isn’t capable of performing as claimed. As such, it can be assumed that any flexible material is capable of so performing. Since the apparatus of Sherman includes all of the structure claimed for performing the function and is the same as the structure disclosed by Applicant for performing the claimed function, it can be assumed that the structure of Sherman is inherently capable of so performing. As such, it is reasonable to consider Sherman to read on the claimed invention.
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 CASSEY D BAUER whose telephone number is (571)270-7113. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs: 10AM-8PM (ET).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Frantz Jules can be reached at 571-272-6681. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/CASSEY D BAUER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights