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 .
The claims received 7/14/2026 are entered. Claims 20-24 are cancelled.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 7/14/2026. The replacement drawing is directed at figure 4. The examiner cannot find any difference between original figure 4 and replacement figure 4. As the drawing is identical it can contain no new matter and is therefor acceptable.
Specification
The specification amendment was received on 7/14/2026. The amendment corrects several clerical errors and is entered.
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) 1-3, 18-19, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by An et al (US 10,928,114)
Regarding claim 1, An discloses an ice making device comprising:
an ice maker (20) provided in an ice making chamber and configured to generate ice;
a cooler (4:9-12) configured to cool the ice maker;
a liquid supplier (120 and 220) configured to supply liquid to the ice maker in an ice making process; and
a controller (7:59-8:2) configured to control at least one of the cooler or the liquid supplier,
wherein the ice maker comprises a first tray (110) including a first cell and a second tray (210) including a second cell, and
wherein the controller is configured to control a start of an ice making tray of the first tray and the second tray to be delayed from a start of an ice making of another tray of the first and second tray (7:59-8:2; 8:62-9:7; 9:30-38; 9:62-10:3).
Regarding claim 3, An discloses an ice making time of the one tray is less than an ice making time of the other tray (the ice maker is capable of differing ice making times; this feature is not attached to a configuration of the controller).
Regarding claim 18, An discloses when an ice making of the first tray or the second tray is completed, the controller is configured to perform an ice separation process to separate the ice from each of the first tray and the second tray (step T20 of figure 8).
Regarding claim 19, An discloses an ice making device comprising:
an ice maker (20) provided in an ice making chamber and configured to generate ice;
a cooler (4:9-12) configured to cool the ice maker;
a liquid supplier (120 and 220) configured to supply liquid to the ice maker in an ice making process;
a controller configured to control at least one of the cooler or the liquid supplier,
wherein the ice maker comprises a first tray (110) including a first cell, and a second tray (210) including a second cell,
wherein after starting to a supply of a cooling power or starting to a supply of liquid to each of the first tray and the second tray, the controller is configured to control the liquid supplier or the cooler to stop a supply of a cooling power or a supply of liquid of one tray of the first tray and the second tray (10:10-24) before an ice separation process of each of the first and the second tray (the ice makers perform repeatedly thus any operation is before a subsequent ice separation process).
Regarding claim 25, An discloses a refrigerator comprising:
a cabinet (1) having a storage chamber;
a door (13 and 14)that opens and closes the storage chamber;
an ice making chamber provided in the door or the cabinet;
an ice maker (20) provided in the ice making chamber and configured to generate ice;
a cooler (4:9-12) configured to cool the ice maker;
a liquid supplier (120 and 220) configured to supply liquid to the ice maker in an ice making process;
a controller configured to control at least one of the cooler or the liquid supplier,
wherein the ice maker comprises a first tray (110) including a first cell and a second tray (210) including a second cell,
wherein the controller is configured to control a start of an ice making of one tray of the first tray and the second tray to be delayed from a start of an ice making of other tray of the first tray and the second tray (7:59-8:2; 8:62-9:7; 9:30-38; 9:62-10:3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over An et al (US 10,928,114) in view of Hara (US 4,910,974).
Regarding claim 2, An discloses the ice making device of claim 1, but lacks the second tray being of a two tray construction. Hara discloses an ice making device wherein a tray (10) includes one tray (11) to define a portion of a cell and another tray (12) to define another portion of the cell. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided An with the two tray construction of Hara in order to provide spherical ice which is regarded as desirable to consumers.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over An et al (US 10,928,114) in view of Jeong et al (US 10,072,885).
Regarding claim 4, An discloses the ice making device of claim 2, but lacks a delay of water supply. Jeong discloses an ice maker wherein a controller is configured to control the liquid supplier so that a liquid supply start time of the one tray is delayed from a liquid supply start time of the other tray in the ice making process (figures 9 and 10 provide a water supply delay). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided An with the water supply delay to the ice trays as taught by Jeong in order to enhance the clarity of the ice (11:24-12:8).
Claim(s) 3, 9-11, and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over An et al (US 10,928,114).
Regarding claims 9 and 10, An discloses the two ice trays produce ice of different sizes and shapes (7:38-47) but is silent concerning liquid water supply rate or time. However it follows that an ice tray requiring more or less water (due to size or shape of the ice) will require a different supply rate or time of water than another tray. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided An with differing supply rates or times in order to provide each tray with an appropriate amount of water and prevent overfill/spilling and underfill conditions. This further follows in regard to claim 3 that the ice making time of one tray differs from another.
Regarding claim 11, An discloses the ice making processes are performed repeatedly unless an ice full condition is detected (10:10-24) but is silent concerning a number of supply times. However it follows in the condition that one ice lever detects a full condition and the other is not that the number of water supply steps differ. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided that the controller controls the number of water supply time to one tray to be more than the other in order to produce more of a particular ice size/shape that is more popular to the user.
Regarding claims 3, 15, and 16, An discloses the two ice trays produce ice of different sizes and shapes (7:38-47) but is silent concerning relative cooling power or time. However it follows that an ice tray requiring more or less water (due to size or shape of the ice) will require a differing cooling power or time than another tray. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided An with differing supply rates or times in order to provide each tray with an appropriate amount of cooling to fully freeze and to prevent undercooling. This further follows in regard to claim 3 that the ice making time of one tray differs from another.
Regarding claims 3 and 17, An discloses the ice making processes are performed repeatedly unless an ice full condition is detected (10:10-24) but is silent concerning a number of cooling times. However it follows in the condition that one ice lever detects a full condition and the other is not that the number of cooling supply steps differ. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided that the controller controls the number of cooling supply times to one tray to be more than the other in order to produce more of a particular ice size/shape that is more popular to the user. This further follows in regard to claim 3 that the ice making time of one tray differs from another.
Claim(s) 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over An et al (US 10,928,114) in view of Olson, Jr. et al (US 2017/0003062).
Regarding claim 12, An discloses he ice making device of claim 2, but lacks a cooling power delay. Olson discloses an ice maker having a plurality of ice making evaporators which are controlled such that a timing of a supply of a cooling power to the one tray is delayed from a timing of a supply of a cooling power to the other tray ([0015], [0034]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided An with the time delay as taught by Olson in order to manage the load ([0014]).
Regarding claim 13, An and Olson further disclose the controller is configured to control the cooler so that a supply of a cooling power to the one tray starts when a first reference time elapses after the supply of the cooling power to the other tray starts (An as modified by Olson discloses the sequence as discussed in Olson [0033]-[0034]).
Regarding claim 14, An further discloses the controller is configured to control the cooler so that the supply of the cooling power to the one tray and the other tray stops when a second reference time elapses after the supply of the cooling power to the one tray starts (step T20 of figure 8).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 5 is directed to the controller configuration to control the liquid supplier such that a liquid supply to one tray starts when a first reference time elapses after a liquid supply to the other tray starts. There is no teaching within An or suggestion from the prior art to supply this feature to An within the context of the claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant summarizes portions of the An reference and then purports at page 18 that An fails to teach the limitations of claim 1. However as cited above An discusses the delay of ice making operations of the first and second tray relative to each other. Moreover applicant has not defined what the start of an ice making operation is. The ice making operation is a cyclically repeating operation. No particular point in the process is more valid as a start than any other point. The examiner pauses here to note that the clear and positively recited time elapse at claim 5 relative to the liquid supply was indicated as allowable.
In regard to arguments directed at claim 19, as pointed out by applicant the citation in the rejection is to column 10 which describes full ice detection. In a full detection condition the ice making operation, and thus liquid supply, is stopped.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yun (KR2015-0061861) multi-tray ice maker.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CHRISTOPHER R ZERPHEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5965. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-4:00 PM.
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 5712707740. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER R ZERPHEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
Prosecution Insights