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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1-2 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 20 of copending Application No. 18/844621 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding claim 1, 18/844621 shows an ice making device comprising (claim 1, line 1):
an ice maker configured to generate ice and provided in an ice making chamber (claim 1, line 2); and
a storage chamber configured to store the ice generated by the ice maker (claim 20),
wherein the ice maker comprises a first tray including a first cell in which first ice is formed, and a second tray including a second cell in which second ice is formed (claim 1, lines 5-7), and
wherein the storage chamber comprises a first storage space for storing the first ice, and a second storage space for storing the second ice (claim 20).
Regarding claim 2, 18/844621 further shows wherein a type of the first ice is different from a type of the second ice (claim 1, lines 5-7).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 21 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 20 of copending Application No. 18/844621 in view of Choi (KR 2000 0032977: cited by Applicant, English translation provided by Examiner).
Regarding claim 21, 18/844621 shows an ice making device comprising (claim 1, line 1):
an ice making chamber (claim 1, line 2)
a first tray including a first cell in which first ice is formed (claim 1, lines 5-7);
a second tray including a second cell in which second ice of a different type from the first ice is formed and provided in the ice making chamber (claim 1, lines 5-7, line 2);
a first storage space for storing the first ice (claim 20); and
a second storage space for storing the second ice and partitioned from the first storage space (claim 20).
18/844621 is silent regarding a cabinet having a storage chamber; a door that opens and closes the storage chamber; the ice making chamber provided in the door or the cabinet.
Choi teaches another ice making device, comprising a cabinet having a storage chamber (see at least cabinet #A); a door that opens and closes the storage chamber (see at least door at #D and/or #C); the ice making chamber provided in the door or the cabinet (see at least Abstract, ice maker #100 is part of the refrigerator and thus must be either in the door or cabinet).
It would have been obvious to provide the device of 18/844621 with a cabinet having a storage chamber; a door that opens and closes the storage chamber; the ice making chamber provided in the door or the cabinet, as taught by Choi, to improve the device of 18/844621 by providing chilling, storing, and dispensing structure for the ice making device and associated ice.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 471, 142. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 12-13 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 12 recites the limitation “an inclination angle of the guide body” twice. It is unclear if these are the same or different from one another and/or “an inclination angle of the guide body” of claim 10. To expedite prosecution, and in view that the guide body may have multiple inclination angles, the claim has been interpreted as written, i.e. that the inclination angle(s) may not be the same as that in claim 10 or as each other. Claim 13 is rejected insofar as it is dependent on claim 12 and therefore includes the same error(s).
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 “an inclination angle of the second body”. It is unclear if this is the same or different from the inclination angle of claim 11, upon which claim 16 depends. To expedite prosecution, the claim has been interpreted as written, i.e. that the inclination angle(s) may not be the same as that in claim 11.
Claim 18 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 18 recites the limitation “a plurality of openings”. It is unclear if these are the same or different from the plurality of openings of claim 17, upon which claim 18 depends. To expedite prosecution, and in view that there do not appear to be a plurality of pluralities of openings, they have been interpreted as the same.
Claim 20 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 20 recites the limitation “a plurality of openings”. It is unclear if these are the same or different from the plurality of openings of claim 17, upon which claim 18 depends. To expedite prosecution, and in view that there do not appear to be a plurality of pluralities of openings, they have been interpreted as the same. The term “close” in claim 20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “close” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. To expedite prosecution, any degree of closeness will be considered to meet the claim.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Choi (KR 2000 0032977: cited by Applicant, English translation provided by Examiner).
Regarding claim 1, Choi shows an ice making device comprising:
an ice maker configured to generate ice and provided in an ice making chamber (see at least ice maker #100); and
a storage chamber configured to store the ice generated by the ice maker (see at least box #200),
wherein the ice maker comprises a first tray including a first cell in which first ice is formed (see at least Figure 3, ice tray #110), and a second tray including a second cell in which second ice is formed (see at least Figure 3, ice tray #120), and
wherein the storage chamber comprises a first storage space for storing the first ice (see at least first part #210 of box #200), and a second storage space for storing the second ice (see at least second part #220 of box #200).
Regarding claim 2, Choi further shows wherein a type of the first ice is different from a type of the second ice (see at least Figure 3, the first and second ice are different in both shape and size).
Regarding claim 3, Choi further shows wherein the first ice and the second ice are different from each other in one or more of transparency, size, and shape (see at least Figure 3, the first and second ice are different in both shape and size).
Regarding claim 4, Choi further shows wherein the first tray and the second tray are arranged in a horizontal direction or in a vertical direction (see at least tray #110 and tray #120, which are three dimensional objects and thus are arranged in both horizontal and vertical direction).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Choi (KR 2000 0032977: cited by Applicant; English translation provided by Examiner).
Regarding claim 21, Choi shows an ice making device comprising:
a cabinet having a storage chamber (see at least cabinet #A);
a door that opens and closes the storage chamber (see at least door at #D and/or #C);
an ice making chamber provided in the door or the cabinet (see at least Abstract, ice maker #100 is part of the refrigerator and thus must be either in the door or cabinet);
a first tray including a first cell in which first ice is formed and provided in the ice making chamber (see at least Figure 3, ice tray #110);
a second tray including a second cell in which second ice of a different type from the first ice is formed and provided in the ice making chamber (see at least Figure 3, ice tray #120: the first and second ice are different in both shape and size);
a first storage space for storing the first ice (see at least first part #210 of box #200); and
a second storage space for storing the second ice and partitioned from the first storage space (see at least second part #220 of box #200).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 5-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (KR 2020 0075440: cited by Applicant; English Translation provided by Examiner).
Regarding claim 5, Choi is silent regarding further comprising a guide provided at one side of the ice maker and that guides the first ice generated in the first tray to the first storage space and that guides the second ice generated in the second tray to the second storage space.
Lee et al. teaches another ice making device further comprising a guide provided at one side of the ice maker and that guides the first ice generated in the first tray to the first storage space and that guides the second ice generated in the second tray to the second storage space (see at least partition wall #38; “The partition wall 38 guides the ice falling from the first cell 321 in the tray 32 and the ice falling from the second cell 322 to not mix with each other.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the device of Choi with further comprising a guide provided at one side of the ice maker and that guides the first ice generated in the first tray to the first storage space and that guides the second ice generated in the second tray to the second storage space, as taught by Lee et al., to improve the device of Choi by preventing the ice from being scattered or mixed enroute to the storage box.
Regarding claim 6, Choi as modified by Lee et al. further discloses further comprising a partition plate to allow the first ice and the second ice falling onto the guide to be moved in a separated state (see at least Choi Figure 3, door #410 partitioning #210/#220).
Regarding claim 7, Choi further discloses wherein the partition plate is extended in a vertical direction or in a horizontal direction and is coupled to the guide or the ice maker (see at least Choi Figure 3, door #410 is both vertically and horizontally extended and is coupled to the box #200 of ice maker #100).
Regarding claim 8, Choi as modified by Lee et al. further discloses wherein the guide comprises a first guide that guides the first ice (see at least Lee et al. left surface of #38 and left side top surface of #40), and a second guide that guides the second ice (see at least Lee et al. right surface of #38 and right side top surface of #40), and
wherein an inclination angle of at least a portion of the first guide with respect to a horizontal plane is different from an inclination angle of the second guide (see at least Lee et al. the inclination angle of the left surface of #38 is different from the inclination angle of the right side top surface of #40).
Regarding claim 9, Choi as modified by Lee et al. further discloses wherein the first guide and the second guide are arranged in a horizontal direction or a vertical direction (see at least Lee et al. left and right sides of #38, which are vertical; and left side and right side top surface of #40, which are horizontal).
Regarding claim 10, Choi as modified by Lee et al. further discloses wherein the first guide comprises a guide body that is inclined with respect to the horizontal plane (see at least Lee et al. left surface of #38 and left side top surface of #40: both portions of the first guide are inclined with respect to the horizontal plane), and
wherein the second guide comprises a first body having an angle different from an inclination angle of the guide body (see at least Lee et al. right surface of #38, which is inclined at a different angle from the left side top surface of #40), and a second body extending from the first body to be inclined with respect to the first body (see at least Lee et al. right side top surface of #40, which is inclined at a different angle compared with the right surface of #38).
Regarding claim 11, Choi as modified by Lee et al. further discloses wherein an inclination angle of the second body is less than an inclination angle of the first body (see at least Lee et al. right surface of #38 is inclined at 90 degrees with respect to horizontal and the right side top surface of #40 is inclined at an angle of less than 90 degrees with respect to horizontal).
Regarding claim 12, Choi as modified by Lee et al. further discloses wherein an inclination angle of the first body is greater than an inclination angle of the guide body (see at least Lee et al., the right surface of #38 has a greater inclination angle than the left side top surface of #40), and
an inclination angle of the second body is less than an inclination angle of the guide body (see at least the right side top surface of #40 has a smaller inclination angle than the left surface of #38).
Regarding claim 13, Choi as modified by Lee et al. further discloses wherein the guide further comprises a connection surface that connects the first body and the guide body (see at least Lee et al. vertical surface of #38 that connects and separates the left and right surfaces of #38 and left and right top surfaces of #40).
Regarding claim 14, Choi as modified by Lee et al. further discloses wherein a length of the second body in a direction in which the first body and the second body are arranged is greater than a length of the first body (see at least Lee et al., the right side top surface of #40 will be longer than that of the right side surface of #38 in view that #40 is angled with respect to a horizontal projection)
Regarding claim 15, Choi as modified by Lee et al. further discloses wherein the second guide further comprises a third body extending from the second body to be inclined with respect to the second body (see at least Lee et al., the downwardly projecting surface projecting from the right side top surface of #40).
Regarding claim 16, Choi as modified by Lee et al. further discloses wherein an inclination angle of the third body is greater than an inclination angle of the second body (see at least the downwardly projecting surface is vertically disposed and thus has a greater inclination angled than the right side top surface of #40).
Claim(s) 17-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi in view of Lee et al. as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Hibino et al. (US 4,505,130: cited by Applicant).
Regarding claim 17, Choi in view of Lee et al. further discloses further comprising a sub first liquid supplier configured to supply liquid to the first cell and a sub second liquid supplier configured to supply liquid to the second cell in an ice making process (see at least Choi “The water supply pipe 130 is supplied with a predetermined amount of water branched from a predetermined water supply source to the first and second ice trays 110 and 120, and may differentially supply water according to the sizes of the first and second ice trays 110 and 120. It is preferable that the inner diameters of the branched portions are formed to be different from each other.”: Each tray has a separate sub supply),
wherein the first guide comprises a opening through which liquid sprayed from the sub first liquid supplier passes, and the second guide comprises an opening through which liquid sprayed from the sub second liquid supplier passes (see at least Lee et al. “A nozzle part 40 for spraying water toward the tray 32 is provided below the tray 32. The nozzle unit 40 sprays water in an upward direction to spray water on each cell of the tray 32. The nozzle part 40 includes a first nozzle part 42 for spraying water toward the first cell 321 and a second nozzle part 44 for spraying water toward the second cell 322.”: thus the first and second guide include an opening for each sub supplier).
Choi in view of Lee et al. does not disclose a plurality of openings through which liquid sprayed from the sub first liquid supplier passes, and a plurality of openings through which liquid sprayed from the sub second liquid supplier passes.
However, it was old and well-known in the art to provide a plurality of openings in a guide through which liquid sprayed from sub first/second liquid suppliers passes, as evidenced by Hibino et al. (see at least column 4, lines 23-32).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the guides of Choi in view of Lee et al. with a plurality of openings through which liquid sprayed from the sub first liquid supplier passes, and a plurality of openings through which liquid sprayed from the sub second liquid supplier passes, since, as evidenced by Hibino et al., such provision was old and well-known in the art and would provide the predictable benefit of allowing the water to more evenly supply the cells in the first/second ice trays.
Regarding claim 18, Choi in view of Lee et al. and Hibino et al. does not disclose wherein a diameter of a plurality of openings of the first guide is greater than a diameter of a plurality of openings of the second guide or a distance between centers of two adjacent openings of the first guide is greater than a distance between centers of two adjacent openings of the second guide.
There is no evidence of record that establishes that providing wherein a diameter of a plurality of openings of the first guide is greater than a diameter of a plurality of openings of the second guide or a distance between centers of two adjacent openings of the first guide is greater than a distance between centers of two adjacent openings of the second guide would result in a difference in function of the Choi in view of Lee et al. and Hibino et al. device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the device of Choi in view of Lee et al. and Hibino et al., would have reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears that the system would function as intended being given the claimed sizes/positions. Lastly, Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed sizes/positions solve any stated problem, indicating that the diameters/distances “may” be greater (see paragraphs [39]; [40]) and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the sizes/positions as claimed such that they produce an unexpected result.
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the device of Choi in view of Lee et al. and Hibino et al. with wherein a diameter of a plurality of openings of the first guide is greater than a diameter of a plurality of openings of the second guide or a distance between centers of two adjacent openings of the first guide is greater than a distance between centers of two adjacent openings of the second guide as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 20, Choi as modified by Lee et al. and Hibino et al. further discloses wherein a plurality of openings of the second guide is arranged close to a boundary portion between the first guide and the second guide (see at least Lee et al. “A nozzle part 40 for spraying water toward the tray 32 is provided below the tray 32. The nozzle unit 40 sprays water in an upward direction to spray water on each cell of the tray 32. The nozzle part 40 includes a first nozzle part 42 for spraying water toward the first cell 321 and a second nozzle part 44 for spraying water toward the second cell 322.”; Hibino et al. column 4, lines 23-32: the plurality will be “close” to the boundary in order to perform the spray discussed by Lee et al.)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure as also teaching ice cells supplied by a plurality of nozzles/openings.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAVIA SULLENS whose telephone number is (571)272-3749. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 6:30-4:30 Eastern.
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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at 571-270-7740. 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.
/TAVIA SULLENS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763