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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed with respect to the double patenting rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendment. Accordingly, the double patenting rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, filed with respect to the drawing objection have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendment. Accordingly, the drawing objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, filed with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendment, with the exception of claims 12-13. Accordingly, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn, except for those of claims 12-13. Applicant’s amendment did not completely address the issues under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Please see also below for new grounds of rejection, necessitated by amendment.
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the prior art rejections have been fully considered but they are moot. Applicant is arguing about limitations added to the claims in an amendment. Please see new grounds of rejection, necessitated by Amendment, below.
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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 9 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 9 recites the limitations “includes a plurality of first through openings through which liquid to be supplied to the first tray passes and a plurality of second through holes through which the liquid discharged from the first tray passes, and the second guide includes a plurality of first through openings through which liquid to be supplied to the second tray passes and a plurality of second through holes through which the liquid discharged from the second tray passes”. Claim 14 recites the limitations “at least one of the plurality of first through openings is positioned higher than the other of the plurality of first through holes, or at least one of the plurality of second through openings is positioned higher than the other of the plurality of second through holes”. It does not appear that these limitations are found in the text of the disclosure. Should Applicant disagree and wish to traverse, Applicant is encouraged to cite the specific area(s) of the originally filed disclosure providing such support. It is recommended to amend claims 9 and 14 to correspond to the disclosure and in view of the clarity rejections below.
Claims 17, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 17 has been amended to recite the limitation “and wherein a number of the plurality of first openings is different from a number of the plurality of second openings”. It does not appear that this feature is supported by the disclosure as filed. Should Applicant disagree and wish to traverse, Applicant is encouraged to cite the specific area(s) of the originally filed disclosure providing such support. Claims 18 and 20 are rejected insofar as they are dependent on claim 17 and therefore include the same error(s).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 20 has been amended to recite the limitations “wherein the second guide includes a first end and a second end, a distance between the first end and a boundary portion between the first guide and the second guide is less than a distance between the second end and the boundary portion, and wherein a distance between the plurality of second openings of the second guide and the first end is less than a distance between the plurality of second openings of the second guide and the second end”. It does not appear that this feature is supported by the disclosure as filed. Should Applicant disagree and wish to traverse, Applicant is encouraged to cite the specific area(s) of the originally filed disclosure providing such support.
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.
Claim 9 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 9 recites the limitations “includes a plurality of first through openings through which liquid to be supplied to the first tray passes and a plurality of second through holes through which the liquid discharged from the first tray passes, and the second guide includes a plurality of first through openings through which liquid to be supplied to the second tray passes and a plurality of second through holes through which the liquid discharged from the second tray passes”. This cannot be understood. Are the first through holes in the first tray? Are the first through holes in the second tray? Applicant should amend the claim to either avoid the duplicative use of first/second with respect to holes/openings in the first and second trays and/or to make consistent use of the terminology so that the clarity issue is resolved.
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 14 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 14 is dependent on claim 11, which is dependent on claim 10, which is dependent on claim 8. Claim 14 refers to the plurality of first through openings and the plurality of second through holes. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. It appears that claim 14 should depend on claim 9. However, claim 14 also refers to first through holes and second through openings, which are not present in claim 9. Clarification is requested.
Normally a claim which fails to comply with the first and/or second paragraph of
§112 will not be analyzed as to whether it is patentable over the prior art since to do so would of necessity require speculation with regard to the meets and bounds of the claimed subject matter, In re Steele, 308 F .2d 859, 862-63, 134 USPQ 292, (CCPA 1962) and In re Wilson, 424 F .2d 1382, 1385, 496 USPQ 494, 496 (CCPA 1970). As a courtesy to Applicant, with the exception of claims 9 and 14 which cannot be understood, Examiner has attempted to apply art to the claims as best they could be understood as presented. Examiner notes that Applicant’s correction of the deficiencies under 35 U.S.C. 112 may necessitate new grounds of rejection.
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) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (KR 2000 0032977: cited by Applicant, English translation provided by Examiner) in view of Donghoon et al. (KR 20210031251: English translation provided by Examiner.
Regarding claim 1, Choi discloses 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),
wherein the storage chamber comprises a first storage space that stores the first ice (see at least first part #210 of box #200), and a second storage space that stores the second ice (see at least second part #220 of box #200).
Choi does not disclose wherein the second tray includes one tray that defines a second one cell which a portion of the second cell, and another tray that defines a second another cell which is another portion of the second cell.
Donghoon et al. teaches another ice tray wherein a tray (see at least Figures 54 and 55) includes one tray that defines one cell which is a portion of the cell (see at least #320), and another tray that defines another cell which is another portion of the cell (see at least #380).
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 wherein the second tray includes one tray that defines a second one cell which a portion of the second cell, and another tray that defines a second another cell which is another portion of the second cell, as taught by Donghoon et al., to improve the device of Choi by allowing for spherical ice to be produced, thus providing for variety for the use and minimizing sticking (see at least Lee et al. “when the shape of the ice is formed in a spherical shape, it may be more convenient to use ice, and a different feeling of use may be provided to the user. In addition, it is possible to minimize the sticking of ice by minimizing the area in contact with each other even when the ice is stored.”).
Regarding claim 2, Choi further discloses 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 discloses 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).
Claim(s) 5-8,10-13, and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi in view of Donghoon et al. 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 that is provided at one side of the ice maker, guides the first ice generated in the first tray to the first storage space, and 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 that is provided at one side of the ice maker, guides the first ice generated in the first tray to the first storage space, and 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 in view of Donghoon et al. with ffurther comprising a guide that is provided at one side of the ice maker, guides the first ice generated in the first tray to the first storage space, and 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 in view of Donghoon et al. by preventing the ice from being scattered or mixed enroute to the storage box.
Regarding claim 6, Choi in view of Donghoon et al. 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 Donghoon et al. and 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 10, Choi as modified by Donghoon et al. and 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 Donghoon et al. and 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 Donghoon et al. and Lee et al. further discloses wherein the 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
the 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 Donghoon et al. and 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 15, Choi as modified by Donghoon et al. and 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 Donghoon et al. and Lee et al. further discloses wherein an inclination angle of the third body is greater than the 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 (KR 2000 0032977: cited by Applicant, English translation provided by Examiner) in view of Lee et al. (KR 2020 0075440: cited by Applicant; English Translation provided by Examiner) and Hibino et al. (US 4,505,130: cited by Applicant).
Regarding claim 17, Choi discloses 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), wherein the storage chamber comprises a first storage space that stores the first ice (see at least first part #210 of box #200), and a second storage space that stores the second ice (see at least second part #220 of box #200).
Choi is silent regarding further comprising a guide that is provided at one side of the ice maker, guides the first ice generated in the first tray to the first storage space, and 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 that is provided at one side of the ice maker, guides the first ice generated in the first tray to the first storage space, and 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 that is provided at one side of the ice maker, guides the first ice generated in the first tray to the first storage space, and 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.
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), wherein the first guide includes a first opening through which liquid to be supplied to the first cell passes, and the second guide includes a second opening through which liquid to be supplied to the second cell 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 tray/cell).
Choi in view of Lee et al. does not disclose a plurality of first openings, and a plurality of second openings.
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 first openings, and a plurality of second openings, 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.
Choi in view of Lee et al. and Hibino et al. does not disclose and wherein a number of the plurality of first openings is different from a number of the plurality of second openings.
There is no evidence of record that establishes that providing wherein a number of the plurality of first openings is different from a number of the plurality of second openings 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 numbers of openings. Lastly, Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed number of openings solve any stated problem, as the text is silent regarding the feature, and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the number of openings 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 w wherein a number of the plurality of first openings is different from a number of the plurality of second openings as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 18, Choi in view of Lee et al. and Hibino et al. does not disclose wherein a diameter of the plurality of first openings of the first guide is greater than a diameter of the plurality of second openings of the second guide or a distance between centers of two adjacent first openings of the first guide is greater than a distance between centers of two adjacent second openings of the second guide.
There is no evidence of record that establishes that providing wherein a diameter of the plurality of first openings of the first guide is greater than a diameter of the plurality of second openings of the second guide or a distance between centers of two adjacent first openings of the first guide is greater than a distance between centers of two adjacent second 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 the plurality of first openings of the first guide is greater than a diameter of the plurality of second openings of the second guide or a distance between centers of two adjacent first openings of the first guide is greater than a distance between centers of two adjacent second 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. does not disclose wherein the second guide includes a first end and a second end, a distance between the first end and a boundary portion between the first guide and the second guide is less than a distance between the second end and the boundary portion, and wherein a distance between the plurality of second openings of the second guide and the first end is less than a distance between the plurality of second openings of the second guide and the second end.
There is no evidence of record that establishes that providing wherein the second guide includes a first end and a second end, a distance between the first end and a boundary portion between the first guide and the second guide is less than a distance between the second end and the boundary portion, and wherein a distance between the plurality of second openings of the second guide and the first end is less than a distance between the plurality of second openings of the second guide and the second end 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, as the text is silent regarding the feature, 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 the second guide includes a first end and a second end, a distance between the first end and a boundary portion between the first guide and the second guide is less than a distance between the second end and the boundary portion, and wherein a distance between the plurality of second openings of the second guide and the first end is less than a distance between the plurality of second openings of the second guide and the second end as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (KR 2000 0032977: cited by Applicant, English translation provided by Examiner) in view of Donghoon et al. (KR 20210031251: English translation provided by Examiner.
Regarding claim 21, Choi discloses 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 that stores the first ice (see at least first part #210 of box #200); and
a second storage space that stores the second ice and partitioned from the first storage space (see at least second part #220 of box #200).
Choi does not disclose wherein the second tray includes one tray that defines a second one cell which a portion of the second cell, and another tray that defines a second another cell which is another portion of the second cell.
Donghoon et al. teaches another ice tray wherein a tray (see at least Figures 54 and 55) includes one tray that defines one cell which is a portion of the cell (see at least #320), and another tray that defines another cell which is another portion of the cell (see at least #380).
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 wherein the second tray includes one tray that defines a second one cell which a portion of the second cell, and another tray that defines a second another cell which is another portion of the second cell, as taught by Donghoon et al., to improve the device of Choi by allowing for spherical ice to be produced, thus providing for variety for the use and minimizing sticking (see at least Lee et al. “when the shape of the ice is formed in a spherical shape, it may be more convenient to use ice, and a different feeling of use may be provided to the user. In addition, it is possible to minimize the sticking of ice by minimizing the area in contact with each other even when the ice is stored.”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 22 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art alone or in combination fails to teach or disclose the limitations of claim 22 in combination with the limitations of the intervening claims.
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 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
Prosecution Insights