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 § 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.
Claims 21-40 are 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 21 recites the term "thereof" in lines 7 and 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim and as such, it cannot be clearly determined which structure the term “thereof” is referring to. For the purposes of examination, the examiner is going to treat the claim as if it read, “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, and wherein the convex shape is configured to include a recess at an outer surface the convex shape that defines a vacant space.”
Claims 28 and 38 recites the term "thereof" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim and as such, it cannot be clearly determined which structure the term “thereof” is referring to. For the purposes of examination, the examiner is going to treat the claim as if it read, “an outer surfaceof the chamber wall.”
Claims 22-27, 29-37, 39 and 40 are also rejected by virtue of dependency.
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 21-27 and 32-33, 36 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2014/0182325 to Lee et al., hereinafter referred to as Lee, in view of US 2,182,454 to Sherman, hereinafter referred to as Sherman.
In reference to claim 21, Lee and Sherman disclose the claimed invention.
Lee discloses an ice maker comprising:
a first assembly comprising a first tray (11) that defines a first portion of an ice chamber; and
a second assembly comprising a second tray (12) that defines a second portion of the ice chamber,
wherein the second tray comprises a convex part (as seen in figure 9, see below for the examiners definition of the convex part) that is made of a flexible material (141, [0032]),
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 9), and
the convex shape is configured to include a recess (at 20 as seen in figure 9 and illustrated below) at an outer surface the convex shape.
PNG
media_image1.png
306
610
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lee fails to explicitly disclose the recess that defines a vacant space.
Sherman teaches that in the art of ice cube trays, that it is a known method to provide a convex part (19, as seen in figure 15) that is configured to include a recess (as seen in figure 15) at an outer surface the convex shape that defines a vacant space. This is strong evidence that modifying Lee as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e., release the ice from the ice chamber). 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 Lee by Sherman such that, the recess defines a vacant space 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 easily releasing ice from the ice chamber.
In reference to claim 22, Lee and Sherman disclose the claimed invention.
Lee discloses the convex part is configured to be transformed to a state that the ice chamber is defined as a final shape without the convex shape inside of the ice chamber based on an ice making process is finished (as seen in figure 7). It should be noted that the claim does not further specify, define, or limit what, if any, additional structure is required in order to be "configured to be transformed to a state that the ice chamber is defined as a final shape without the convex shape inside of the ice " beyond that previously recited, of which Lee includes, as detailed above.
In reference to claim 23, Lee and Sherman disclose the claimed invention.
Lee discloses the convex part is configured to be deformable from a first state (as seen in figure 9) to a second state in a shape (as seen in figure 8), and wherein the convex shape defines the first state.
In reference to claim 24, Lee and Sherman disclose the claimed invention.
Lee discloses the convex part is configured to protrude outward of the ice chamber at the second state in an opposite way of the first state in which the ice chamber is configured to expand to the recess and form a final shape based on an ice making process is finished, see figures 8 and 9. It should be noted that the claim does not further specify, define, or limit what, if any, additional structure is required in order to be "configured to protrude outward of the ice chamber at the second state in an opposite way of the first state in which the ice chamber is configured to expand to the recess and form a final shape based on an ice making process is finished" beyond that previously recited, of which Lee includes, as detailed above.
In reference to claim 25, Lee and Sherman disclose the claimed invention.
Lee discloses the shape of the convex part in the second state (as seen in figure 8) is configured to form a concave shape inside of the ice chamber such that the second portion of the ice chamber (12) is configured to be hemispherical when changing from the first state to the second state.
In reference to claim 26, Lee and Sherman disclose the claimed invention.
Lee discloses the recess (at 20 as seen in figure 9) at the outer surface of the convex part is configured to be disappeared based on the convex part changing into the second state (as seen in figure 8) so that a circumference of the second portion of the ice chamber is configured to form a continuous line without a bent point, see figure 8.
In reference to claim 27, Lee and Sherman disclose the claimed invention.
Lee discloses the first tray (11) comprises a first chamber wall (113) that define the first portion of the ice chamber, and the second tray (12) comprises a second chamber wall (14) that define the second portion of the ice chamber; and
wherein the second chamber wall (14) is configured to overlap the first chamber wall (113) and define an inner surface of the ice chamber (see figure 8); and
wherein the convex part (141) is formed at a bottom portion of the second chamber wall (14).
In reference to claim 32, Lee and Sherman disclose the claimed invention.
Lee discloses the second assembly (12) further comprises a support (15) that defines a chamber accommodation recess (151a, between 151 as defined below) configured to face and contact the second chamber wall (14), and
wherein the chamber accommodation recess is configured to rigidly support the second chamber wall (14), (at least at 143 and 142, see figure 8).
PNG
media_image2.png
649
983
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In reference to claim 33, Lee and Sherman disclose the claimed invention.
Lee discloses the chamber accommodation recess (as defined with respect to claim 32 supra) comprises a opening that is configured to face the convex part and defines a space to receive the convex part based on changing from the first state to the second state (see figure 9).
In reference to claim 36, Lee and Sherman disclose the claimed invention.
a diameter of the opening of the support (as defined with respect to claim 32 supra) is greater than a diameter of the convex part (as seen in figure 9).
In reference to claim 37, Lee and Sherman disclose the claimed invention.
a portion of the convex part is positioned within the opening based on the convex part protruding outward of the ice chamber (as seen in figure 8).
Claims 34-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and Sherman as applied supra, and in further view of US 3,736,767 to Lukes, hereinafter referred to as Lukes.
In reference to claim 34, Lee, Sherman, and Lukes disclose the claimed invention.
Although not explicitly disclosed by Lee, one would infer that the support (15) was rigid based on the disclosure of supporting the lower cells (141) in the manner described. Lee teaches that the convex part is flexible but fails to disclose the convex part is made of a silicone material. Further, the use of rigid materials in ice making assemblies is extremely well known and capable of instant recognition of being well-known. Accordingly, even though Lee does not explicitly disclose a rigid material, the use of such materials for an ice making frame would be obvious in order to support the ice tray and not flex during the ice making process.
Lukes teaches that in the art of ice forming trays, that it is a known method to provide an ice cell (mold cavity 6) including a deformable portion made of a silicone material, see column 3 lines 12-18. Thus, silicone is recognized in the art as being suitable for the intended purpose of flexible ice mold material. 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 Lee by Lukes such that, the convex part is made of a silicone material, since it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination, see MPEP 2144.07.
In reference to claim 35, Lee, Sherman, and Lukes disclose the claimed invention.
Lee discloses an ejector (20) that is configured to, based on the second assembly moving away from the first assembly, push the convex part so that the convex part is changed to the first state and an ice piece is discharged from the ice chamber (see figures 8 and 9).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 28-31 and 38-40 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
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
/FRANTZ F JULES/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763