CTNF 18/820,500 CTNF 90183 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2013/0327074 A1), hereafter referred as “Lee,” in view of Osabe (4,719,762) . Regarding Claim 1: Lee teaches a refrigerator (title) comprising: a cabinet (body of refrigerator, abstract); and an ice maker (abstract, 100) disposed in the cabinet (abstract) and configured to make spherical ice (abstract); wherein the ice maker (100) includes: an upper assembly (110) including a plurality of hemispherical upper chambers (113), a lower assembly (120) disposed below (see Figure 3) and pivotably coupled to the upper assembly (110), wherein the lower assembly (120) includes a plurality of hemispherical lower chambers (125) that are configured to come in contact with the plurality of hemispherical upper chambers (paragraph [0039]) to define a plurality of spherical ice chambers (parts 113 and 125 together, paragraph [0039]), respectively, a driver (140) configured to pivot the lower assembly (120, paragraphs [0032] and [0035]). Lee fails to teach an ice bin disposed below the ice maker and configured to receive spherical ice made in the ice maker; and an ice-full state detection lever that is coupled to and configured to be pivoted by the driver, wherein the ice-full state detection lever is configured to pivot in the same direction as the lower assembly to detect whether the ice bin is in an ice-full state, wherein the ice-full state detection lever is configured to extend vertically downward to a vertical level beyond a pivoting radius of the lower assembly, and wherein the ice-full state detection lever is configured to pivot to a lowest vertical level, wherein the lowest vertical level is positioned vertically higher than a bottom of the ice bin by a sum of a diameter of a single spherical ice and a predefined vertical dimension. Osabe teaches an ice bin (2) disposed below an ice maker (1) and configured to receive ice made in the ice maker (1); and an ice-full state detection lever (15, 16, 17) that is coupled to and configured to be pivoted by a driver (motor 9), wherein the ice-full state detection lever (15, 16, 17) is configured to pivot in the same direction as a lower assembly (6, 11) to detect whether the ice bin (2) is in an ice-full state (H1), wherein the ice-full state detection lever (15, 16, 17) is configured to extend vertically downward to a vertical level beyond a pivoting radius of the lower assembly (11), and wherein the ice-full state detection lever (15, 16, 17) is configured to pivot to a lowest vertical level (H2), wherein the lowest vertical level (see Figure 1) is positioned vertically higher than a bottom of the ice bin by a sum of a diameter of a single ice and a predefined vertical dimension (H2, ice height, Column 3, lines 22-66). 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 an ice bin disposed below the ice maker and configured to receive spherical ice made in the ice maker; and an ice-full state detection lever that is coupled to and configured to be pivoted by the driver, wherein the ice-full state detection lever is configured to pivot in the same direction as the lower assembly to detect whether the ice bin is in an ice-full state, wherein the ice-full state detection lever is configured to extend vertically downward to a vertical level beyond a pivoting radius of the lower assembly, and wherein the ice-full state detection lever is configured to pivot to a lowest vertical level, wherein the lowest vertical level is positioned vertically higher than a bottom of the ice bin by a sum of a diameter of an ice and a predefined vertical dimension to the structure of Lee as taught by Osabe in order to advantageously provide automatic detection of small or zero quantity of ice in the ice storage bin (see Osabe, abstract). Lee modified supra fails to specifically teach wherein the lowest vertical level is positioned vertically higher than a bottom of the ice bin by a sum of a diameter of a single spherical ice and a predefined vertical dimension of a spherical ice. However, Lee teaches spherical ice in shape and the secondary reference Osabe teaches having the ice detection lever operating to a low position in an ice bin to a lowest and lifting to a highest position (see Figure 1). Thus, the shape of the ice and distance when the ice is spherical design choice and predictable (i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result). In this case, the recognized result is an improved detection of ice levels. 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 lowest vertical level is positioned vertically higher than a bottom of the ice bin by a sum of a diameter of a single spherical ice and a predefined vertical dimension of a spherical ice in order to achieve efficient operation of the ice detection lever. See MPEP 2144.04 IV A and B; and 2144.05 I, II A and B . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Dahl (2,982,111) . 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 Application/Control Number: 18/820,500 Page 2 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/820,500 Page 3 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/820,500 Page 4 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/820,500 Page 5 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/820,500 Page 6 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/820,500 Page 7 Art Unit: 3763
Prosecution Insights