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 .
Claims 20-24 have been canceled.
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.
The following limitation(s) is/are 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 means or a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the means or generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
“ice separation assembly” includes the generic/nonce term “assembly” coupled with the function of “configured to separate the ice from the ice maker in an ice separation process”. A return to the specification provides “For example, the ice separation assembly may include one or more of the liquid supply assembly 320 and the refrigerant pipes 510 and 520. The controller 190 may control liquid discharge from the liquid supply assembly 320 by controlling the liquid supply valve 304 in an ice separation process. The controller 190 may control the switching valve to allow high-temperature refrigerant to flow to the refrigerant pipes 510 and 520 in the ice separation process.” [279].
The liquid supply assembly 320 includes “[154] The liquid supply assembly 320 can supply liquid to the ice maker 40 during a liquid supply process. [155] Alternatively, the supply component may include a liquid supplier. The supplier may supply liquid supplied from the liquid supply assembly to an ice maker (e.g., tray). The liquid supplier may include a sub liquid supplier. The sub liquid supplier may include a pipe through which the liquid flows. The sub liquid supplier may include a nozzle. The sub liquid supplier may further include a pump. The sub liquid supplier may include a subfirst liquid supplier. The sub liquid supplier may include a subsecond liquid supplier. The ice making device 1 may further include a liquid supplier 330. The liquid supplier 330 may supply liquid to the ice maker 40 during an ice making process. The liquid supplier 330 can store liquid supplied from the liquid supply assembly 320 and supply liquid to the ice maker 40. [156] In this embodiment, the liquid supply assembly 320 may be referred to as a first liquid supply assembly. The liquid supplier 330 may be referred to as a second liquid supply assembly.”
Therefor the limitation is interpreted as the same or equivalents thereof.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: within the last element of claim 19 is recited “starting to a supply” (two instances) which is grammatically incorrect. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-9 and 25 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 1 recites “a liquid supplier” and “an ice separation assembly” however as disclosed the ice separation assembly includes the liquid supplier (see quotations of the specification in the 112f analysis above). Thus the liquid supplier is claimed twice within the claim. The scope of the claim is unclear.
Claims 19 and 25 recite similar
Claims depending from a rejected claim are rejected due to their dependency.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al (WO 2020/130473).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses an ice making device comprising:
an ice maker (ice maker includes ice tray 32) provided in an ice making chamber and configured to generate ice;
a cooler (90) configured to cool the ice maker;
a liquid supplier (72 and 74) configured to supply liquid to the ice maker in an ice making process;
an ice separation assembly ([64], including valve 112) configured to separate the ice from the ice maker in an ice separation process; and
a controller (100) configured to control at least one of the cooler, the liquid supplier, or the ice separation assembly (figure 4).
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;
an ice separation assembly (130 and 230) configured to separate the ice from the ice maker in an ice separation process; and
a controller (7:59-8:2) configured to control at least one of the cooler, the liquid supplier, or the ice separation assembly.
Regarding claim 2, An discloses 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 an ice making of one tray of the first tray and the second tray to be delayed from an ice making of the other tray of the first tray and the second tray (7:59-8:2; 8:62-9:7; 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 operate the ice separation assembly 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;
an ice separation assembly (130 and 230) configured to separate the ice from the ice maker in an ice separation process; and
a controller configured to control at least one of the cooler, the liquid supplier, or the ice separation assembly,
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).
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;
an ice separation assembly (130 and 230) configured to separate the ice from the ice maker in an ice separation process; and
a controller configured to control at least one of the cooler, the liquid supplier, or the ice separation assembly, 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 an ice making of one tray of the first tray and the second tray to be delayed from an ice making of other tray of the first tray and the second tray (7:59-8:2; 8:62-9:7; 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) 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 (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 differeing 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 timse 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.
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.
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