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 9/6/2024 are entered. Claim 21 is cancelled.
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.
“a liquid supply assembly” (at claims 12 and 13) includes the generic/nonce term “assembly” coupled with the function of “liquid supply”. A return to the specification provides a liquid supplier (found at claim 1). Therefor the limitation is interpreted as the same or equivalents thereof.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Claim 5 recites the first and second trays are arranged in a vertical direction. There is no figure that shows the trays in a vertical direction, all figures show the trays arranged horizontally.
Claim 8 recites the first and second cells overlap in the vertical direction. There is no figure that shows the ice cells in a stacked arrangement.
Claim 9 recites “one end of the first cell is positioned lower than one end of the second cell and another end of the first cell is positioned higher than another end of the second cell.” All figures show the trays arranged horizontally.
Claim 11 recites that both the first and second tray comprise first and another tray. No figure shows two part trays for the first and second tray. Moreover no figure shows relative heights of the coupling contact portions.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 1-2 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 of copending Application No. 18844678 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the feature of different types of ice appears in dependent claim 2 of the cited app.
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 19 of copending Application No. 18844450 in view of Yun (KR20140061861). Claim 19 of the cited app includes all features of instant claim 1 except that the ice of the first and second trays are of different types. Yun discloses different types of ice. It follows to provide different types of ice in order to increase utility to a user.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-2 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 of copending Application No. 1844464 in view of Yun (KR20140061861). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the feature of different types of ice appears in dependent claim 2 of the cited app. Further while the cited application does not recite a liquid supplier, Yun discloses a liquid supply. It follows to provide a liquid supplier to an ice maker in order to allow it to function automatically.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 1844552 in view of Yun (KR20140061861). While the cited application does not recite a liquid supplier, Yun discloses a liquid supply. It follows to provide a liquid supplier to an ice maker in order to allow it to function automatically.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
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 12-13 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 12 recites “a liquid supply assembly” which lacks clear antecedent basis to the liquid supplier of claim 1.
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) 1-2, 5-8, 14, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yun (KR20140061861)
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.
Regarding claim 2, Yun discloses the first ice and the second ice are different from each other in one or more of transparency, size, and shape (different shapes shown in figure 1).
Regarding claim 5, Yun discloses the first tray and the second tray are arranged in a horizontal direction or in a vertical direction (the trays are three dimensional objects and include arrangement in both directions).
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 8, Yun discloses at least a portion of the first cell overlaps the second cell in a horizontal direction or in a vertical direction (said cells overlap in the horizontal direction as shown in figure 1).
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 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) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun (KR20140061861).
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.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun (KR20140061861) 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 and also to provide one cell higher/lower than other.
Claim(s) 10 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 10, Yun discloses the ice making device of claim 5, but lacks the upper and lower tray arrangement as claimed. Hara discloses 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). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Yun with the two part ice tray of Hara in order to produce spherical ice. 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.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun (KR20140061861) in view of Denigan, III et al (US 2018/0335238).
Regarding claim 11, Yun discloses the ice making device of claim 5, 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) 12-13 and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun (KR20140061861) in view of Olson, Jr. et al (US 2017/0003062).
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Yun discloses the ice making device of claim 1, including a liquid supplier and a heat exchanger but lacks the liquid supply assembly being higher than the ice making cells and heat exchanger. Olson discloses an ice making device including a liquid supply assembly (7) configured to supply liquid during a liquid supply process, wherein the liquid supply assembly is positioned higher than the ice making cells and heat exchanger (205). 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 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).
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.
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