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 .
Status
This Office Action is in response to the remarks and amendments filed 05/20/2026. Claims 2 and 9-10 have been canceled. Claim 19 is new. Claims 1, 3-8 and 11-19 remain pending for consideration on the merits.
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:
A non-contact-based sensing device in at least claim 15
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 show 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:
A non-contact-based sensing device appears to be described as any suitable device for generating data indicative of temperature, such as an infrared thermopile sensing device in at least ¶ 0042 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 § 102
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 8, 11 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ji et al. (US 20240263863 A1, hereinafter “Ji”).
Regarding Claim 8, Ji teaches a method for operating an ice maker appliance, the method comprising:
directing, with a controller [131], liquid water into a mold cavity of a mold body of the ice maker appliance [¶ 0082-0085, 0140; also see Fig. 9, S1000];
receiving, with the controller [161, 131; temperature detection unit part of control unit], non-contact-based sensing device data indicative of a temperature within the mold cavity [¶ 0100-0102; an infrared temperature sensor may detect temperature of the water supplied to the ice making grooves];
determining, with the controller, the temperature of a water target within the mold cavity based on the received non-contact-based sensing device data [¶ 0101-0102; the control unit 131 determines times based on the temperature detected], the water target corresponding to the liquid water or an ice piece formed within the mold cavity [¶ 0100-0102];
determining, with the controller, a length of time for the liquid water within the mold cavity to be formed into an ice piece based on the determined temperature of the water target [¶ 0100-0102; control unit 131 may determine preset times of an ice operation in response to receiving temperature data];
comparing, with the controller, the determined length of time for the liquid water to be formed into the ice piece to a threshold length of time range [¶ 0040; control unit may compare to a preset delay time in an ice operation to control the separating motor]; and
initiating, with the controller, a control action associated with the ice maker appliance in response to the determined length of time for the liquid water to be formed into the ice piece falling outside of the threshold length of time range [¶ 0101; after the preset time, the controller determine whether the preset temperature of the ice is satisfied, and therefore generates a control action in response to the length of time to form ice being greater than a threshold time range].
Claim 9 canceled
Claim 10 canceled
Regarding Claim 11, Ji teaches the method of claim 8 above and Ji further teaches comprising:
determining, with the controller, the threshold length of time range, the threshold length of time range corresponding to a plurality of previously determined lengths of time for liquid water to form into ice pieces [¶ 0025; the control unit may control the system with a heating start time point calculated using cumulative ice making time or cumulative time equal to or less than a predetermined temperature].
Regarding Claim 15, Ji teaches an ice maker appliance [100; fig. 3] defining a vertical direction, a lateral direction, and a transverse direction, comprising:
a mold body [110] with a mold cavity [115] defined therein, the mold cavity configured to receive a fill of liquid water and form an ice piece therein [¶ 0081-0084; water is filled in the grooves 115 of ice tray 110 to form ice];
a non-contact-based sensing device [161] configured to generate data indicative of a temperature within the mold cavity [¶ 0100; temperature detection unit 161 may be an infrared sensor]; and
a controller [131] operatively coupled to the non-contact-based sensing device [Fig. 4; temperature detection unit 161 is operably coupled to control unit 131], the controller configured to:
determine the temperature of a water target within the mold cavity based on the data generated by the non-contact-based sensing device, the water target corresponding to the liquid water or the ice piece [¶ 0032; also see 0033-0046];
determine a length of time for the liquid water within the mold cavity to be formed into the ice piece based on the determined temperature of the water target [¶ 0100-0102; control unit 131 may determine preset times of an ice operation in response to receiving temperature data];
compare the determined length of time for the liquid water to be formed into the ice piece to a threshold length of time range [¶ 0040; control unit may compare to a preset delay time in an ice operation to control the separating motor]; and
initiate a control action associated with the ice maker appliance in response to the determined length of time for the liquid water to be formed into the ice piece falling outside of the threshold length of time range [¶ 0032; the control unit determines preset operation times as a result of receiving readings from the temperature detection unit] [¶ 0101; after the preset time, the controller determine whether the preset temperature of the ice is satisfied, and therefore generates a control action in response to the length of time to form ice being greater than a threshold time range].
Regarding Claim 16, Ji teaches the ice maker appliance of claim 15 above and Ji teaches wherein the non-contact-based sensing device is configured as an infrared-based sensing device [¶ 0100].
Regarding Claim 17, Ji teaches the ice maker appliance of claim 15 above and Ji teaches wherein the mold cavity comprises an open end, the open end oriented upwards [¶ 0082; Figs. 3, 5; molds 115 are filled from the upper surface].
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.
Claims 1, 3-7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ji and further in view of Yang et al. (US 20230266043 A1, hereinafter “Yang”).
Regarding Claim 1, Ji teaches a method [Fig. 9] for operating an ice maker appliance [Abstract], the method comprising:
directing, with a controller [131], liquid water into a mold cavity of a mold body of the ice maker appliance [¶ 0082-0085, 0140; also see Fig. 9, S1000];
receiving, with the controller [161, 131; temperature detection unit part of control unit], non-contact-based sensing device data indicative of a temperature within the mold cavity [¶ 0100-0102; an infrared temperature sensor may detect temperature of the water supplied to the ice making grooves];
determining, with the controller, the temperature of a water target within the mold cavity based on the received non-contact-based sensing device data [¶ 0101-0102; the control unit 131 determines times based on the temperature detected], the water target corresponding to the liquid water or an ice piece formed within the mold cavity [¶ 0100-0102];
determining, with the controller, a length of time for the liquid water within the mold cavity to be formed into an ice piece based on the determined temperature of the water target [¶ 0100-0102; control unit 131 may determine preset times of an ice operation in response to receiving temperature data]; and
Ji does not explicitly teach wherein the method comprises: initiating, with the controller, a notification to an operator of the ice maker appliance of suggested maintenance of the ice maker appliance based on the determined length of time for the liquid water to be formed into the ice piece.
However, Yang teaches a method of diagnosing a device having an ice making function [Figs. 1-9] wherein the system may comprise a control operation such that a notification service may be provided to a user terminal [500] when the ice making device is providing a diagnosis for performance [¶ 0073-0075]. Yang further teaches that the diagnosis of performance may further be determined based on an operating time of the ice making device in order to further diagnose the system error [Fig. 4; ¶ 0076-0081]. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the control operation as claimed by known methods and that in combination, the control operation would perform the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. utilizing the rate of ice making provides an intermediate step in diagnostics to end the cycle early, so that the controller may move on to other diagnostics, thereby reducing the required computational power and further improving the efficiency of the system [¶ 0081].
Therefore, it is a simple mechanical expedient that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Ji to have wherein the method comprises: initiating, with the controller, a notification to an operator of the ice maker appliance of suggested maintenance of the ice maker appliance based on the determined length of time for the liquid water to be formed into the ice piece, in view of the teachings of Yang, where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. utilizing the rate of ice making provides an intermediate step in diagnostics to end the cycle early, so that the controller may move on to other diagnostics, thereby reducing the required computational power and further improving the efficiency of the system.
Claim 2 canceled
Regarding Claim 3, Ji, as modified, teaches the method of claim 1 above and Ji further teaches comprising:
comparing, with the controller, the determined length of time for the liquid water to be formed into the ice piece to a threshold length of time range [¶ 0040; control unit may compare to a preset delay time in an ice operation to control the separating motor]; and
initiating, with the controller, the control action associated with the ice maker appliance in response to the determined length of time falling outside of the threshold length of time range [¶ 0040; control unit may initiate after the preset delay time has elapsed to operate the ice separating motor or heater].
Regarding Claim 4, Ji, as modified, teaches the method of claim 3 above and Ji further teaches comprising:
determining, with the controller, the threshold length of time range, the threshold length of time range corresponding to a plurality of previously determined lengths of time for liquid water to form into ice pieces [¶ 0025; the control unit may control the system with a heating start time point calculated using cumulative ice making time or cumulative time equal to or less than a predetermined temperature].
Regarding Claim 5, Ji, as modified, teaches the method of claim 3 above and Yang teaches wherein initiating the notification to the operator comprises:
initiating, with the controller, the notification to the operator of the ice maker appliance of suggested maintenance of the ice maker appliance [¶ 0073-0075; the system may comprise a control operation such that a notification service may be provided to user terminal 500 when the ice making device is providing a diagnosis for performance] in response to the determined length of time for the liquid water within the mold cavity to be formed into the ice piece falling outside of the threshold length of time range [Fig. 4; at least S11; ¶ 0078-0081; the control system operates based on whether or not the rate of ice making is greater than or less than a predetermined threshold time]
Regarding Claim 6, Ji, as modified, teaches the method of claim 5 above and Yang teaches wherein initiating the notification to the operator comprises:
displaying the notification to the operator of the ice maker appliance on a display of a control panel of the ice maker appliance or a refrigerator appliance [Figs. 1-2; ¶ 0066, 0120-0121; a user interface 290, disposed on the electronic device for making ice 200, may receive input of controlling the operation of the electronic device from the user and may receive messages from the service server].
Regarding Claim 7, Ji, as modified, teaches the method of claim 5 and Yang teaches wherein initiating the notification to the operator comprises:
displaying the notification to the operator of the ice maker appliance on a user interface of a remote device [500] [¶ 0045; Fig. 1; user terminal 500 may receive information related to the electronic device or request checking and repairing].
Claims 12-14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ji as in claims 8 and 15 above, and further in view of Yang.
Regarding Claim 12, Ji teaches the method of claim 8 above but Ji does not explicitly teach wherein initiating the control action comprises: initiating, with the controller, a notification to an operator of the ice maker appliance of suggested maintenance of the ice maker appliance in response to the determined length of time for the liquid water within the mold cavity to be formed into the ice piece falling outside of the threshold length of time.
However, Yang teaches a method of diagnosing a device having an ice making function [Figs. 1-9] wherein the system may comprise a control operation such that a notification service may be provided to a user terminal [500] when the ice making device is providing a diagnosis for performance [¶ 0073-0075]. Yang further teaches that the diagnosis of performance may further be determined based on an operating time of the ice making device in order to further diagnose the system error [Fig. 4; ¶ 0076-0081]. Also see at least S11, wherein Yang teaches that the control system operates based on whether or not the rate of ice making (i.e. time to produce ice) is greater than or less than a predetermined threshold time [¶ 0078-0081]. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the control operation as claimed by known methods and that in combination, the control operation would perform the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. utilizing the rate of ice making provides an intermediate step in diagnostics to end the cycle early, so that the controller may move on to other diagnostics, thereby reducing the required computational power and further improving the efficiency of the system [¶ 0081].
Therefore, it is a simple mechanical expedient that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Ji to have wherein initiating the control action comprises: initiating, with the controller, a notification to an operator of the ice maker appliance of suggested maintenance of the ice maker appliance based on the determined length of time for the liquid water to be formed into the ice piece, in view of the teachings of Yang, where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. utilizing the rate of ice making provides an intermediate step in diagnostics to end the cycle early, so that the controller may move on to other diagnostics, thereby reducing the required computational power and further improving the efficiency of the system.
Regarding Claim 13, Ji, as modified, teaches the method of claim 12 above and Yang teaches wherein initiating the notification to the operator comprises:
displaying the notification to the operator of the ice maker appliance on a display of a control panel of the ice maker appliance or a refrigerator appliance [Figs. 1-2; ¶ 0066, 0120-0121; a user interface 290, disposed on the electronic device for making ice 200, may receive input of controlling the operation of the electronic device from the user and may receive messages from the service server].
Regarding Claim 14, Ji, as modified, teaches the method of claim 12 above and Yang teaches wherein initiating the notification to the operator comprises:
displaying the notification to the operator of the ice maker appliance on a user interface of a remote device [500] [¶ 0045; Fig. 1; user terminal 500 may receive information related to the electronic device or request checking and repairing].
Regarding Claim 19, Ji teaches the ice maker appliance of claim 15 above, but Ji does not explicitly teach wherein initiating the control action comprises: initiating a notification to an operator of the ice maker appliance of suggested maintenance of the ice maker appliance in response to the determined length of time for the liquid water within the mold cavity to be formed into the ice piece falling outside of the threshold length of time range.
However, Yang teaches a method of diagnosing a device having an ice making function [Figs. 1-9] wherein the system may comprise a control operation such that a notification service may be provided to a user terminal [500] when the ice making device is providing a diagnosis for performance [¶ 0073-0075]. Yang further teaches that the diagnosis of performance may further be determined based on an operating time of the ice making device in order to further diagnose the system error [Fig. 4; ¶ 0076-0081]. Also see at least S11, wherein Yang teaches that the control system operates based on whether or not the rate of ice making (i.e. time to produce ice) is greater than or less than a predetermined threshold time [¶ 0078-0081]. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the control operation as claimed by known methods and that in combination, the control operation would perform the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. utilizing the rate of ice making provides an intermediate step in diagnostics to end the cycle early, so that the controller may move on to other diagnostics, thereby reducing the required computational power and further improving the efficiency of the system [¶ 0081].
Therefore, it is a simple mechanical expedient that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Ji to have wherein initiating the control action comprises: initiating, with the controller, a notification to an operator of the ice maker appliance of suggested maintenance of the ice maker appliance based on the determined length of time for the liquid water to be formed into the ice piece, in view of the teachings of Yang, where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. utilizing the rate of ice making provides an intermediate step in diagnostics to end the cycle early, so that the controller may move on to other diagnostics, thereby reducing the required computational power and further improving the efficiency of the system.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ji as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Ji et al. (KR 20220099587 A, hereinafter “Ji 587”).
Regarding Claim 18, Ji teaches the ice maker appliance of claim 17 above and while Ji teaches that the temperature detection unit may be exposed to the ice tray, Ji does not explicitly teach wherein the non-contact-based sensing device is positioned over the open end of the mold cavity so that the non-contact-based sensing device has a temperature detection range within the mold cavity.
However, Ji 587 teaches an ice maker and refrigerator including the same [Figs. 1-4] wherein a refrigerator [1] comprises an ice making assembly [Figs. 2-4] comprising a plurality of ice mold cavities [15] being motivated by a control box [20] and a controller [C] [¶ 0086]. Ji 587 further teaches the use of an infrared sensor [200] disposed above the open mold cavity so as to direct temperature readings down towards the ice making tray [Fig. 4; ¶ 0086-0092]. Therefore, while Ji generally taught the use of infrared sensors, Ji 587 further demonstrates that the claimed location of the infrared sensor is a known technique in the art. When there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, i.e. to position the infrared sensor in the ice tray or above the ice tray, a person of ordinary skill has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, i.e. providing a means for the controller to determine various operation controls through temperature readings [¶ 0086], it is likely the product is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance, the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show it was obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103 (KSR Int' l Co. v. Teleflex Incl, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ji, by trying to position the infrared sensor over the open end of the mold cavity, since choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is within the abilities of one having ordinary skill. See MPEP 2143(I)(E).
Response to Arguments
On pages 7-8 of the remarks, Applicant argues that amended independent claim 1 overcomes the previous rejection. Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
On pages 8-9 of the remarks, Applicant argues that the claims, as amended, are not anticipated by Ji. Specifically Applicant claims that Ji does not teach comparing a determined length of time for the liquid water to be formed with a threshold length of time, or initiating a control action in response to said determining having a length of time greater than a threshold time. Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive.
Ji explicitly teaches that the controller may receive information from infrared temperature sensors, targeting water to be formed into ice, wherein the controller operates based on the temperature detected being equal or less than a preset temperature after a preset time after ice making water is supplied to be frozen [¶ 0100-0102]. Therefore, according to the broadest reasonable interpretation, Ji’s system compares a temperature of the water to be frozen relative to a reference temperature. If said reference temperature is not met, it therefore determines that the time to form the ice is greater than a predetermined threshold. Ji also discusses the state of the prior art, wherein it is known that the size of the refrigerator (capacity) impacts the ice making time of water and cannot be controlled simply by preset times, thus prompting Ji’s method to determine the time for freezing [¶ 0116]. Accordingly, because the controller is making a decision (Y or N to proceed to following steps), based on received input data, the controller is commonsensically initiating a control action (operating) based on said determination. The rejection is therefore maintained.
On pages 10-11 of the remarks, Applicant argues that there would be no motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Ji and Yang to teach the claimed features. Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive.
While Applicant asserts that the scope of the prior arts focus on entirely different problems, the examiner respectfully disagrees, as both prior arts appear to be drawn to the same field of endeavor regarding at least ice making and methods of controlling said ice making in an apparatus, wherein Ji provides an ice making and a control method [Ji Abstract] and Yang teaches diagnosing (or controlling/determining) a device with an ice making function [Yang Abstract]. Yang also teaches known advantages for utilizing ice making time in a diagnostic/control scenario, as Yang explicitly teaches that ice making time is a known variable utilized in the prior art when using control media to make determinations, as the rate of ice making may provide an intermediate step in diagnostics to end the cycle early, so that the controller may move on to other diagnostics, thereby reducing the required computational power and further improving the efficiency of the system [¶ 0081]. This advantage is commonsensically applicable to Ji, as Ji seeks to improve the separation upon the completion of forming ice, therefore prior arts providing an improvement to the determining of ice completion are considered pertinent prior art. The rejection is therefore 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 KEITH S MYERS whose telephone number is (571)272-5102. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:00.
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.
/KEITH STANLEY MYERS/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights