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 8/12/2026 are entered. Claims 11 and 15-29 are cancelled. Claims 30-36 are new.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I and Species I in the reply filed on 4/24/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 2 recites “isg”. Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawing amendment received on 8/12/2026 is entered.
Specification
The specification amendment received on 8/12/2026 is entered.
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) 1-2, 7-8, 30, and 35-36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun (KR20140061861; machine translation attached) in view of Hibino et al (US 4,505,130).
Regarding claims 1, 30, and 35-36, Yun discloses an ice making device comprising:
an ice maker configured to generate ice and provided in an ice making chamber; and
a cooler configured to supply cold to the ice maker in an ice making process ([0028]);
wherein the ice maker comprises a first tray (46) including a first cell in which first ice is formed, and
a second tray (47) including a second cell in which second ice is formed, a type of the first ice being different from a type of the second ice (two shapes shown in figure 1; [0001]),
wherein the cooler comprising:
a first refrigerant pipe (48) configured to cool the first tray (46), and
a second refrigerant pipe (48; figure 2 shows that 48 includes at least two pipes) configured to cool the second tray (47).
Yun lacks the first refrigerant pipe including first and second cooling pipes as claimed.
Hibino discloses an ice maker having a refrigerant pipe (3), wherein the refrigerant pipe includes a first cooling pipe in contact with a first/top surface of the first tray (top surface of the ice cell), and a second cooling pipe in contact with a second/side surface of the of the first ice tray (side surface of the ice cell) between two adjacent ice cells.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided the first tray of Yun with the first and second cooling pipes as taught by Hibino in order to increase heat transfer and contact with the ice tray.
Regarding claim 2, Yun further discloses the second refrigerant pipe is connected to the first refrigerant pipe in series, wherein refrigerant sequentially flows through the first refrigerant pipe and the second refrigerant pipe (portions connected by a U shape are in series as shown in figure 2).
Regarding claim 7, Yun discloses a liquid supplier (42 and 43/45) that supplies liquid to each of the first tray and the second tray, or supplies liquid to only one of the first and second trays.
Regarding claim 8, Yun discloses when a difference between an ice making completion time in the first tray and an ice making completion time in the second tray is less than a predetermined value, the liquid supplier is controlled to supply the liquid to the first tray and the second tray at the same time ([0023] provides simultaneously supplying both trays with water).
Claim(s) 3-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun (KR20140061861; machine translation attached), in view of Hibino et al (US 4,505,130), and in view of Jeong et al (US 12,345,459)
Regarding claims 3-5, Yun discloses the first and second trays (46 and 47) but is silent concerning relative heat exchange areas, volumes, sum of volumes.
However, a change of shape does not make a product nonobvious where the claimed shape is not of functional significance and accomplishes the same purpose as the prior art shape. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 672-73 (CCPA 1966). It has been generally held that changes in sizes of shapes of known elements are within the level of skill in that art, especially in the absence of unexpected results or criticality. Cf Gardner v. TEC Sys., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (holding that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device).
In this instance, the volume of the ice cells corresponds to the size of the ice produced. Larger ice tends to dilute more slowly while smaller ice dilutes more quickly, e.g. when used in drinks. Both effects are desirable depending on the specific use of the ice. It also follows to provide a heat exchange area appropriate for the amount of cooling to be performed, e.g. amount of water frozen. Still further Jeong evidences a dual style ice maker with two different types of ice having differing volumes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Yun with differently sized ice, and differing total volumes of each tray, in order to produce both large and small ice as well as larger amounts of one type over another in order to satisfy a user’s need.
Regarding claim 6, Yun discloses the first tray (46) comprises an opening for discharging the first ice, and a diameter or size of the opening is equal to or greater than a diameter or size of the first cell (the bottom of the cell is open/is an opening). Yun lacks a two-part construction of the second tray.
Jeong discloses a first tray (221) and a second tray (211), wherein the second tray comprises a second one tray and a second another tray for the second cell (211a and 211b), and one or more of the second one tray and the second another tray are movable to separate the second ice from the second cell.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Yun with the two-part tray as taught by Jeong in order to make spherical ice.
Claim(s) 9-10 and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun (KR20140061861; machine translation attached), in view of Hibino et al (US 4,505,130), and in view of Lee et al (US 2022/0034570)
Regarding claims 9-10, Yun discloses the ice making device of claim 7 where the liquid supplier is controlled to supply water to only one or both of the ice making trays ([0023]) but is silent concerning a completion time and water supply. Lee discloses a dual ice maker where the ice makers perform continuously until their respective ice bins are full and moreover provides that the rates of ice formation of each ice maker may be different due to their respective size ([0067]) water supply to a non-producing ice maker is ceased ([0068]-[0076]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Yun with simultaneous supply of water when both ice trays have completion times of rates in order to match an ice making rate of both ice trays.
Regarding claim 12, Yun as modified discloses the ice making device of claim 10 but is silent concerning relative transparency of the ice.
In the previous office action on the merits the Examiner took Official Notice that clear ice makers are old and well known. In his subsequent reply to this office action, the applicant did not traverse Examiner’s assertion of Official Notice with regard to these elements. Therefore the Official Notice statements by the Examiner regarding these elements are now taken as admitted prior art by the Applicant. See MPEP §2144.03(C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Yun with a heater for the production of clear ice as clear ice is regarded as desirable to consumers.
Regarding claim 13, Yun further discloses n liquid that has supplied to the second cell (47) is cooled by the second refrigerant pipe to generate the second ice, and liquid supplied to the first cell (46) is cooled by the first refrigerant pipe to generate the first ice.
Regarding claim 14, Yun and Lee further disclose a volume of the first cell is less than a volume of the second cell (as taught by Lee in modification above the cells are of a different volume).
Obviously.
Claim(s) 31-32 and 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun (KR20140061861; machine translation attached) in view of Hara (US 4,910,974).
Regarding claim 31, Yun discloses an ice making device comprising:
an ice maker configured to generate ice and provided in an ice making chamber; and
a cooler configured to supply cold to the ice maker in an ice making process ([0028]);
wherein the ice maker comprises a first tray (46) including a first cell in which first ice is formed, and
a second tray (47) including a second cell in which second ice is formed, a type of the first ice being different from a type of the second ice (two shapes shown in figure 1; [0001]),
wherein the cooler comprising:
a first refrigerant pipe (48) configured to cool the first tray (46), and
a second refrigerant pipe (48; figure 2 shows that 48 includes at least two pipes) configured to cool the second tray (47).
Yun lacks the second tray including a one tray and another tray.
Hara discloses an ice maker having one tray (11) configured to define a portion of the second cell, and another tray (12) configured to define another portion of the second cell and be moved relative to the one tray, and the refrigerant pipe (14) configured to cool the one tray (11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Yun with the one and another tray as taught by Hibino in order to produce spherical ice, which is desirable to consumers.
Regarding claim 32, Yun further discloses the second refrigerant pipe is connected to the first refrigerant pipe in series, wherein refrigerant sequentially flows through the first refrigerant pipe and the second refrigerant pipe (portions connected by a U shape are in series as shown in figure 2).
Regarding claim 34, Yun and Hara further disclose the second refrigerant pipe includes a plurality of straight parts and a curved shape connection part connecting two adjacent straight parts (the second refrigerant pipe associated with the ‘one tray’ as provided by Hara shown in at least figure 14 of Hara where the serpentine path includes a plurality of straight parts connected by curved parts).
Claim(s) 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun (KR20140061861; machine translation attached), in view of Hara (US 4,910,974), and in view of Hibino et al (US 4,505,130).
Regarding claim 33, Yun, as modified, discloses the ice making device of claim 31 but lacks a heat exchange area of the first tray being greater than the second tray.
Hibino discloses an ice maker having a refrigerant pipe (3), wherein the refrigerant pipe includes a first cooling pipe in contact with a first/top surface of the first tray (top surface of the ice cell), and a second cooling pipe in contact with a second/side surface of the of the first ice tray (side surface of the ice cell) between two adjacent ice cells.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided the first tray of Yun with the first and second cooling pipes as taught by Hibino in order to increase heat transfer and contact with the ice tray. Moreover as the first tray is modified to having such an arrangement the relative heat exchange area is larger.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive or rendered moot by the new grounds of rejection.
The examiner agrees in light of the amendment to the instant application and to the cited applications that a double patenting rejection is no longer appropriate.
The examiner agrees that Yun does not provide the first and second cooling pipes as claimed in claim 1. However, Hibino is provided to teach said feature.
Regarding new claim 31, Hara is relied upon to teach the two-part moveable tray construction.
Regarding claim 35, Hibino is relied upon to teach the arrangement of a cooling pipe between cells.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kim et al (US 12,595,949) plural ice tray water supply
Dimijian (US 4,970,877) parallel evaporator for ice maker
Hara (US 4,910,974) spherical ice maker
Olson, Jr. et al (US 2017/0003062) plural evaporator control for ice maker
Kim (US 2012/0111048) dual ice maker water supply
Murak (JP2006105479) dual ice maker
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 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