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 6/25/2026 are entered. Claims 2, 5, 8, 12-13, and 21 are cancelled. Claims 22-26 are new.
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.
“liquid supply assembly” (at claim 24) includes the generic/nonce term “assembly” coupled with the function of “liquid supply”. A return to the specification provides a liquid supplier however it is not clear that said liquid supplier corresponds to one or both of the liquid supply assemblies. Therefor the limitation is not clear.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 6/25/2026. These drawings are include replacement figures 4, 17, and 18. No difference can be identified between said figures and the same in the originally filed drawings. Applicant has not commented on the reason for submitting replacement drawings. As there is no difference between the original drawings and the replacement sheets there is no reason to deny their entry. Said replacement drawings are acceptable.
Specification
The specification corrections received 6/25/2026 are entered.
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 24-26 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.
As was stated above in regard to 112(f) it is not clear what disclosed feature(s) correspond to the first and second liquid supply assemblies. Thus applicant has not shown possession of the claimed invention.
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 24-26 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.
As was stated above in regard to 112(f) it is not clear what disclosed feature(s) correspond to the first and second liquid supply assemblies. Thus the scope of the claim is unclear.
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) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yun (KR20140061861).
Regarding claim 24, Yun discloses an ice making device comprising:
an ice maker (40) configured to generate ice and provided in an ice making chamber; and
a first liquid supply assembly (20) configured to supply liquid to the ice maker in a liquid supply process,
a second liquid supply assembly (44) configured to supply the liquid to the ice maker in an ice making process, wherein the ice maker comprises:
a first tray (47) including a first cell in which first ice is formed, and
a second tray (46) including a second cell in which second ice of a different type from the first ice is formed, and
wherein the first cell is provided between a portion of the first liquid supply assembly and the second liquid supply assembly and the second cell is provided between another portion of the first liquid supply assembly and the second liquid supply assembly (said ice cells are between the first and second liquid supply as shown in figure 1).
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, 3-4, 6-710, 14, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun (KR20140061861), in view of Hara (US 4,910,974), and in view of Culley (US 9,080,800).
Regarding claim 1, Yun discloses an ice making device comprising:
an ice maker (40) configured to generate ice and provided in an ice making chamber; and
a liquid supplier (42) configured to supply liquid to the ice maker in an ice making process,
wherein the ice maker comprises a first tray (47) including a first cell in which first ice is formed, and a second tray (46) including a second cell in which second ice of a different type from the first ice is formed.
Yun lacks a two tray construction of the second tray. Hara discloses a two part ice tray (10 and 12) wherein the second tray includes one tray (10) configured to define a portion of a second cell and another tray (12) configured to define another portion of the second cell. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Yun with a two part tray in place of one or the other of trays 46 and 47 as taught by Hara in order to create spherical ice which is desirable to the end user.
Yun lacks a pusher. Culley discloses a pusher (66) configured to separate ice from an ice tray. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Yun with the pusher of Culley in order to enhance ice harvesting, including reducing or eliminating the use of heat for defrosting.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Yun discloses the first tray (47) comprises a plurality of first cells, and the second tray (46) comprises a plurality of second cells, but does not explicitly state relative 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 produced ice. Larger ice tends to dilute more slowly while smaller ice cools and dilutes more quickly. Both effects are desirable to a user depending on the specific use of the ice. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill 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 needs.
Regarding claim 6, Yun discloses in a state in which the first tray is connected to the second tray, the first and second trays are disposed in the ice making chamber (both ice making trays are within the ice making chamber as shown in figure 1, as shown in figure 2 the trays are connected by at least the evaporator structure, moreover the trays are connected as they are mounted within the same space as part of the same assembly).
Regarding claim 7, Yun discloses the first tray and the second tray (47 and 46) are disposed in the ice making chamber while being spaced apart from each other in a horizontal direction or in a vertical direction (shown in figure 1 the trays are spaced apart in the horizontal direction).
Regarding claim 10, Yun as modified by Hara disclose (the following citations are to Hara) a tray comprises an upper tray (11) that defines a one cell which is a portion of the ice making cell, and a lower tray (12) that defines an another cell which is another portion of the ice making cell and rotatable with respect to the upper tray based on a rotation center (16). Further when providing Yun the ice tray of Hara where the ice trays are arranged in a horizontal manner the second cells is positioned between the rotation center and the first cell, where the rotation center is positioned to the outside.
Regarding claim 14, Yun discloses a heat exchanger (48) configured to cool the ice maker, and wherein the heat exchanger comprises a first refrigerant pipe configured to cool the first tray, and a second refrigerant pipe configured to cool the second tray (two pipes shown with U-shaped connection, each connected to an ice tray).
Regarding claim 18, Yun discloses at least a portion of an inlet pipe of the first refrigerant pipe and a discharge pipe of the second refrigerant pipe are arranged in a vertical direction or in a horizontal direction (the pipes are three dimensional structures and include arrangement in the vertical and horizontal directions).
Regarding claim 19, Yun discloses at least a portion of an inlet pipe of the first refrigerant pipe overlaps a discharge pipe of the second refrigerant pipe in a vertical direction or a horizontal direction or is arranged in parallel with a discharge pipe of the second refrigerant pipe (the refrigerant pipes are parallel and overlap in the horizontal direction as shown in figure 2).
Regarding claim 20, Yun discloses a first storage space for storing the first ice, and a second storage space for storing the second ice and partitioned from the first storage space (spaces 50 are partitioned as shown in figure 1).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun (KR20140061861), in view of Hara (US 4,910,974), in view of Culley (US 9,080,800), and in view of Lee et al (US 11,747,068).
Regarding claim 9, Yun discloses the ice making device of claim 5, but lacks one cell being higher or lower than another. Lee discloses a plurality of ice cells having some ends positioned higher/lower than others to allow for different ice sizes. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have enlarged or diminished one cell relative to another in order to produce ice pieces of differing sizes which also results in one cell higher/lower than other.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun (KR20140061861), in view of Hara (US 4,910,974), in view of Culley (US 9,080,800), and in view of Denigan, III et al (US 2018/0335238).
Regarding claim 11, Yun discloses the ice making device described above but lacks the first and second ice trays being two part trays.
Denigan discloses a first one tray that defines a first one cell which is a portion of the first cell, and a first another tray that defines a first another cell which is another portion of the first cell and coupled to the first one tray, wherein the second tray comprises: a second one tray that defines a second one cell which is a portion of the second cell, and a second another tray that defines a second another cell which is another portion of the second cell (Denigan shows at least 9 two part trays in figure 1, figures 4-6 show multi-part construction), wherein a coupling portion of the first one tray and the first another tray is positioned lower than a contact portion of the second one tray and the second another tray in the ice making process (figure 1 shows the trays at differing heights including coupling and contact portions therefor).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Yun with the plural two part trays at different heights in order to increase the amount of ice production (multiple trays) and provide for spherical ice.
Claim(s) 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun (KR20140061861), in view of Hara (US 4,910,974), in view of Culley (US 9,080,800), and in view of Olson, Jr. et al (US 2017/0003062).
Regarding claim 15, Yun discloses the ice making device of claim 14, wherein the first refrigerant pipe comprises a first cooling pipe in contact with the first tray, and a second cooling pipe in contact with the first tray (shown in figure 2). Yun lacks the cooling pipes being at different heights. Olson discloses an ice maker having a plurality of trays, each having a plurality of cooling pipes at different heights (shown in figure 8 the evaporators 205 have a plurality of cooling pipes at different heights). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Yun with ice maker arrangement of Olson in order to provide high capacity ice production.
Regarding claim 16, Yun and Olson further disclose the first refrigerant pipe (205a of Olson) comprises a first inlet pipe, and a first bent pipe bent and extending from the first inlet pipe, and wherein the first cooling pipe is connected to the first bent pipe and the second cooling pipe (e.g. bottom most pipe of 205b of Olson) is disposed lower than the first cooling pipe.
Regarding claim 17, Yun and Olson further disclose the second refrigerant pipe comprises a third cooling pipe in contact with the second tray, and wherein the third cooling pipe is disposed higher than the first cooling pipe and the second cooling pipe (as shown in figure 8 each evaporator has cooling pipes at different heights where one pipe may be selected that is higher/lower than other).
Claim(s) 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun (KR20140061861) in view of Son et al (US 9,335,081)
Regarding claim 22, Yun discloses an ice making device comprising:
an ice maker (40) configured to generate ice and provided in an ice making chamber (10); and
a liquid supplier (42) configured to supply liquid to the ice maker in an ice making process, wherein the ice maker comprises:
a first tray (47) including a first cell in which first ice is formed, and
a second tray (46) including a second cell in which second ice of a different type from the first ice is formed.
Yun lacks a two part construction of the second tray.
Son discloses an ice making tray including one tray (11) configured to define a portion of a second cell and another tray (12) configured to define another portion of the second cell, wherein the other tray is rotatable with respect to the one tray based on a rotation center (21). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Yun with a two part tray in place of one or the other of trays 46 and 47 as taught by Son in order to create spherical ice which is desirable to the end user.
Further when providing Yun the ice tray of Son where the ice trays are arranged in a horizontal manner the second cells is positioned between the rotation center and the first cell, where the rotation center is positioned to the outside.
Regarding claim 23, Yun and Son further disclose the rotation center, the second cell and the first cell are arranged in a horizontal direction (Yun illustrates the plural ice trays in a horizontal manner, the ice tray provided by Yun provides the rotation center in horizontal arrangement with the ice tray therefor all are in horizontal arrangement), and an upper portion of the first cell is positioned higher than the rotation center, and a lower portion of the first cell is positioned lower than the rotation center (Son provides that the rotation center is vertically in the middle of the second ice tray, as the first and second tray of Yun are horizontally disposed the rotation center of the second tray is vertically between the topmost and lowermost portions of the first cell).
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun (KR20140061861) in view of Hara (US 4,910,974).
Regarding claim 25, Yun discloses the ice making device of claim 24, wherein the second tray includes one tray configured to define a portion of the second cell and another tray configured to define another portion of the second cell. Yun lacks a two tray construction of the second tray. Hara discloses a two part ice tray (10 and 12) wherein the second tray includes one tray (10) configured to define a portion of a second cell and another tray (12) configured to define another portion of the second cell. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Yun with a two part tray in place of one or the other of trays 46 and 47 as taught by Hara in order to create spherical ice which is desirable to the end user.
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun (KR20140061861)
Regarding claim 26 Yun discloses the first tray (47) comprises a plurality of first cells, and the second tray (46) comprises a plurality of second cells, but does not explicitly state relative 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 produced ice. Larger ice tends to dilute more slowly while smaller ice cools and dilutes more quickly. Both effects are desirable to a user depending on the specific use of the ice. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill 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 needs.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The examiner agrees that Hara does not include a “pusher”. Culley is provided at claim 1 to teach said feature.
In regard to claims 22 and 23, Son is provided with Yun to teach said new claims
Regarding claim 24, applicant asserts that Yun does not teach claim 24. As detailed above, Yun anticipates claim 24.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jeong et al (US 12,345,459) dual type ice maker.
Dimijian (US 4,959,966) spray type ice maker and evaporator arrangement.
Peltier (US 2,478,312) horizontal, vertical, and angled relative positioning of ice trays.
Schiller et al (US 11,920,845) evaporator arrangement relative to ice tray.
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