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 4/24/2026 are entered. Claims 11 and 15-29 are cancelled.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I and Species I in the reply filed on 4/24/2026 is acknowledged.
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 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 of copending Application No. 18844464 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because The cited application includes first and second ice trays producing different types of ice like in instant claim 1. While the cited application does not include a “cooler” in claims 1 and 2 it is well understood in the art of ice making that means for supplying cold are necessary to freeze liquid water into solid ice. It would have been obvious to have provided a “cooler” in order to provided the essential function of freezing to the ice maker.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18844621 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because The cited application includes first and second ice trays producing different types of ice like in instant claim 1. While the cited application does not include a “cooler” in claim 1 it is well understood in the art of ice making that means for supplying cold are necessary to freeze liquid water into solid ice. It would have been obvious to have provided a “cooler” in order to provided the essential function of freezing to the ice maker.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18844907 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because The cited application includes first and second ice trays producing different types of ice like in instant claim 1. While the cited application does not include the phrase “ice maker” or “ice making chamber” in claim 1 there is recited a “storage chamber” in which ice is made and therefor is an ice making chamber.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 10 and 12-14 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 10 recites “the ice making completion time of the second tray is greater than the ice making completion time of the first tray” A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In this instance, claim 9 provides for “greater than a predetermined value” the above quoted language of claim 10 provides for “greater” thus making the predetermined value zero. Claim 10 also recites a predetermined value of 30-80 minutes. Thus provides a broad and narrow range within the same claim. It is also noted that the second alternative on its own fails to further limit claim 9.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yun (KR20140061861; machine translation attached).
Regarding claim 1, 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]).
Regarding claim 2, Yun further discloses the cooler comprises: a first refrigerant pipe configured to cool the first tray (portion of 48 in contact with 46), and a second refrigerant pipe (portion of 48 in contact with 47) configured to cool the second tray, the second refrigerant pipe being 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 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) 3-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun (KR20140061861; machine translation attached) 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 a 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 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. The examiner takes official notice that clear ice makers are old and well known, particularly including a heater such that a free surface of the ice freezes last. 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 discloses 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).
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
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