DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The submitted information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 3 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 3 contains the following issues:
The claim recites “a number of first cells” and “a number of second cells”, despite claim 1 only reciting “a first cell” and “a second cell”, respectively. There is no antecedent basis for multiple first cells or multiple second cells. The scope of the claim is unclear, since it appears to require a single first cell and a single second cell simultaneously with a plurality thereof. For examination purposes, the beginning of the last limitation in claim 3 will be construed as –wherein there are more than one first cells and second cells, respectively, and a number of first cells that receive […]—, to specify more than just one of each cell.
The claim also recites “one first liquid supply hole” and “one second liquid supply hole” in the second limitation despite only reciting “a first liquid supply hole” and “a second liquid supply hole” in the first limitation. The number of first and second liquid supply holes is unclear given the ambiguous recitations. For examination purposes, the recitations of “a first liquid supply hole” and “a second liquid supply hole” will instead be construed as –at least one first liquid supply hole” and –at least one second liquid supply hole—.
Claim 16 contains the following issues:
The claim recites “a different type” (in line 3), wherein the word “type” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite.1 The term “type” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As currently recited, “a different type” of ice can be construed ambiguously as comprising different chemistry, phases, etc., rendering the scope of the claim unclear. For examination purposes, the quoted recitation will be construed as –a different transparency, size or shape—.
Any remaining claims are rejected at least by virtue of 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.
Claims 1-5, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Tsuda et al. (JP 2005351624 A), herein Tsuda.
As per claim 1, Tsuda discloses an ice making device (see at least fig. 3) comprising: an ice maker (10) provided in an ice making chamber (5) to generate ice (see at least ¶ 29); and a liquid supplier (17) configured to supply liquid to the ice maker (10) during an ice making process (see at least ¶ 36), wherein the ice maker (10) comprises: a first tray (11) including a first ice making cell (11a) in which first ice is formed (see at least fig. 2), and a second tray (12) including a second ice making cell (12a) in which second ice is formed (evident from at least fig. 2).
As per claim 2, Tsuda discloses wherein the first ice and the second ice are different from each other in one or more of transparency, size, and shape (evident from at least fig. 2 and ¶ 38).
As per claim 3, Tsuda discloses wherein the liquid supplier (17) includes a sub first liquid supplier (18a) having a first liquid supply hole (at the end) to supply liquid to the first ice making cell (11a; see fig. 2), and a sub second liquid supplier (18b) having a second liquid supply hole (at the end) to supply liquid to the second ice making cell (12a), and wherein a number of first ice making cells (11a) that receive liquid from one first liquid supply hole (of 18a) is different (evident from at least fig. 3) from a number of second ice making cells (12a) that receive liquid from one second liquid supply hole (of 18b).
As per claim 4, Tsuda discloses wherein one first liquid supply hole (of 18a) is configured to supply liquid to a plurality of first ice making cells (11a) and one second liquid supply hole (of 18b) is configured to supply liquid to one second ice making cell (12a; see at least fig. 2 and ¶ 36).
As per claim 5, Tsuda discloses wherein a volume (1 mL) of the first ice making cell (11a) is less than a volume (8 mL) of the second ice making cell (12a; see at least ¶ 38), or wherein a sum of volumes (e.g., a sum of all 20 volumes shown in fig. 3) of the plurality of first ice making cells (11a) is greater than a sum of volumes (e.g., a sum of 2 volumes) of a plurality of second ice making cells (12a).
As per claim 16, Tsuda discloses an ice making device (10) comprising: a first tray (11) including a first cell (11a) in which first ice is formed (evident from at least fig. 3); a second tray (12) including a second cell (12a) in which second ice of a different type from the first ice is formed (evident from at least fig. 2 and ¶ 38); a sub first liquid supplier (18a) having a first liquid supply hole (at the end) to supply liquid to the first cell (11a); and a sub second liquid suppler (18b) having a second liquid supply hole (at the end) to supply liquid to the second cell (12a).
As per claim 18, Tsuda discloses wherein a position of the first liquid supply hole (of 18a) in an ice making process is equal to a position of the first liquid supply hole (of 18a) in an ice separation process (evident from the fixed location of 18; see at least fig. 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.
Claims 7 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuda (JP 2005351624 A) in view of Dixon (US 3435633 A).
As per claim 7, Tsuda may not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the sub first liquid supplier includes a first nozzle end in which the first liquid supply hole is formed, the sub second liquid supplier includes a second nozzle end in which the second liquid supply hole is formed, and a length of the second nozzle end is greater than a length of the first nozzle end.
On the other hand, Dixon, directed to a cooling device, discloses wherein a sub first liquid supplier includes a first nozzle end (36) in which the first liquid supply hole is formed (see at least fig. 6 and column 4, lines 4-10), the sub second liquid supplier includes a second nozzle end (37) in which the second liquid supply hole is formed (see at least fig. 6), and a length of the second nozzle end (37) is greater than a length of the first nozzle end (36; as shown in fig. 6).
Furthermore, it has been held that some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention is a support for a conclusion of obviousness which is consistent with the proper "functional approach" to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham, if the following findings can be articulated: (1) a finding that there was some teaching, suggestion, or motivation, either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the reference or to combine reference teachings; (2) a finding that there was reasonable expectation of success; and (3) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness.2
As per (1), it should be noted that the different length nozzles allow the liquid supply apparatus (20) to be accommodated within the overall structure of the system (see fig. 6). In other words, Dixon appears to suggest having nozzles of different lengths to ensure a proper configuration and to avoid structural interferences within the device. As per (2), one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that since the prior art of Dixon has successfully implemented its own teachings with regards to the nozzle lengths, there would also be a reasonable expectation of success if said teachings were to be incorporated into the teachings of Tsuda. Said reasonable expectation of success is apparent from the fact that both Tsuda and Dixon are analogous to each other, as well as are analogous to the claimed invention, by virtue of being within the same field of endeavor (i.e. cooling systems). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the teachings of the prior art are compatible and combinable, without yielding unpredictable results. As per (3), one of ordinary skill in the art, when considering the aforementioned evidence, would comprehend that the prior art teachings of Tsuda may be significantly improved by incorporating the prior art teachings of Dixon, since the teachings thereof serve to complement the teachings of Tsuda by virtue of suggesting an improved structural configuration to avoid potential interferences.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have taken the teachings of Tsuda and to have modified them with the teachings of Dixon, by having the sub first liquid supplier include a first nozzle end in which the first liquid supply hole is formed, the sub second liquid supplier include a second nozzle end in which the second liquid supply hole is formed, and a length of the second nozzle end be greater than a length of the first nozzle end, in order to improve the structural configuration of the system to avoid potential interferences, without yielding unpredictable results.
As per claim 20, Tsuda may not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the sub first liquid supplier comprises a first nozzle end in which the first liquid supply hole is formed, the sub second liquid supplier comprises a second nozzle end in which the second liquid supply hole is formed, and a length of the second nozzle end is different from a length of the first nozzle end.
However, Dixon, directed to a cooling unit, discloses wherein a sub first liquid supplier comprises a first nozzle end (36) in which a first liquid supply hole is formed (see at least fig. 6 and column 4, lines 4-10), a sub second liquid supplier comprises a second nozzle end (37) in which a second liquid supply hole is formed (see at least fig. 6), and a length of the second nozzle end (37) is different from a length of the first nozzle end (36; as shown in fig. 6).
Furthermore, it has been held that some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention is a support for a conclusion of obviousness which is consistent with the proper "functional approach" to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham, if the following findings can be articulated: (1) a finding that there was some teaching, suggestion, or motivation, either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the reference or to combine reference teachings; (2) a finding that there was reasonable expectation of success; and (3) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness.3
As per (1), it should be noted that the different length nozzles allow the liquid supply apparatus (20) to be accommodated within the overall structure of the system (see fig. 6). In other words, Dixon appears to suggest having nozzles of different lengths to ensure a proper configuration and to avoid structural interferences within the device. As per (2), one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that since the prior art of Dixon has successfully implemented its own teachings with regards to the nozzle lengths, there would also be a reasonable expectation of success if said teachings were to be incorporated into the teachings of Tsuda. Said reasonable expectation of success is apparent from the fact that both Tsuda and Dixon are analogous to each other, as well as are analogous to the claimed invention, by virtue of being within the same field of endeavor (i.e. cooling systems). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the teachings of the prior art are compatible and combinable, without yielding unpredictable results. As per (3), one of ordinary skill in the art, when considering the aforementioned evidence, would comprehend that the prior art teachings of Tsuda may be significantly improved by incorporating the prior art teachings of Dixon, since the teachings thereof serve to complement the teachings of Tsuda by virtue of suggesting an improved structural configuration to avoid potential interferences.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have taken the teachings of Tsuda and to have modified them with the teachings of Dixon, by having the sub first liquid supplier comprise a first nozzle end in which the first liquid supply hole is formed, the sub second liquid supplier comprise a second nozzle end in which the second liquid supply hole is formed, and a length of the second nozzle end be different from a length of the first nozzle end, in order to improve the structural configuration of the system to avoid potential interferences, without yielding unpredictable results.
Claims 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuda (JP 2005351624 A) in view of Lee (KR 20170000751 U).
As per claim 10, Tsuda may not appear to explicitly disclose wherein a diameter of the first liquid supply hole is greater than a diameter of the second liquid supply hole.
On the other hand, Lee, directed to an ice maker, discloses wherein a diameter of a first liquid supply hole is greater than a diameter of a second liquid supply hole (see at least the last sentence of ¶ 21).
Furthermore, it has been held that some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention is a support for a conclusion of obviousness which is consistent with the proper "functional approach" to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham, if the following findings can be articulated: (1) a finding that there was some teaching, suggestion, or motivation, either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the reference or to combine reference teachings; (2) a finding that there was reasonable expectation of success; and (3) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness.4
As per (1), it should be noted that Lee teaches adjusting the size of the supply diameters in order to ensure the same amount of water can be supplied to each port and tray (¶ 21). As per (2), one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that since the prior art of Lee has successfully implemented its own teachings with regards to the diameter, there would also be a reasonable expectation of success if said teachings were to be incorporated into the teachings of Tsuda. Said reasonable expectation of success is apparent from the fact that both Tsuda and Lee are analogous to each other, as well as are analogous to the claimed invention, by virtue of being within the same field of endeavor (i.e. ice makers). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the teachings of the prior art are compatible and combinable, without yielding unpredictable results. As per (3), one of ordinary skill in the art, when considering the aforementioned evidence, would comprehend that the prior art teachings of Tsuda may be significantly improved by incorporating the prior art teachings of Lee, since the teachings thereof serve to complement the teachings of Tsuda by virtue of suggesting improved water flow control to ensure a proper amount of water is delivered by the apparatus.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have taken the teachings of Tsuda and to have modified them with the teachings of Lee, by having a diameter of the first liquid supply hole be greater than a diameter of the second liquid supply hole, in order to properly control the amount of water that is supplied by the system, as similarly suggested by Lee, without yielding unpredictable results.
As per claim 17, Tsuda may not appear to explicitly disclose wherein a diameter of the first liquid supply hole is different from a diameter of the second liquid supply hole.
On the other hand, Lee discloses wherein a diameter of the first liquid supply hole is different from a diameter of the second liquid supply hole (see at least the last sentence of ¶ 21).
Furthermore, it has been held that some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention is a support for a conclusion of obviousness which is consistent with the proper "functional approach" to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham, if the following findings can be articulated: (1) a finding that there was some teaching, suggestion, or motivation, either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the reference or to combine reference teachings; (2) a finding that there was reasonable expectation of success; and (3) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness.5
As per (1), it should be noted that Lee teaches adjusting the size of the supply diameters in order to ensure the same amount of water can be supplied to each port and tray (¶ 21). As per (2), one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that since the prior art of Lee has successfully implemented its own teachings with regards to the diameter, there would also be a reasonable expectation of success if said teachings were to be incorporated into the teachings of Tsuda. Said reasonable expectation of success is apparent from the fact that both Tsuda and Lee are analogous to each other, as well as are analogous to the claimed invention, by virtue of being within the same field of endeavor (i.e. ice makers). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the teachings of the prior art are compatible and combinable, without yielding unpredictable results. As per (3), one of ordinary skill in the art, when considering the aforementioned evidence, would comprehend that the prior art teachings of Tsuda may be significantly improved by incorporating the prior art teachings of Lee, since the teachings thereof serve to complement the teachings of Tsuda by virtue of suggesting improved water flow control to ensure a proper amount of water is delivered by the apparatus.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have taken the teachings of Tsuda and to have modified them with the teachings of Lee, by having a diameter of the first liquid supply hole be different from a diameter of the second liquid supply hole, in order to properly control the amount of water that is supplied by the system, as similarly suggested by Lee, without yielding unpredictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 8-9, 11-15 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all6 of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
The prior art, when taken as a whole, neither anticipates nor renders prima facie obvious the claimed invention as recited in at least claims 6, 8, 11 and 19. There are no prior art teachings that would otherwise supplement or substitute the teachings of Tsuda to arrive at the claimed invention.
It should also be noted that the intended purpose and operating principles of Tsuda require the specific arrangement of components as disclosed and described therein. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that any modifications to Tsuda to arrive at the claimed invention would be based on improper hindsight, and would render it inoperable for its intended purpose. Assuming arguendo, rearranging the liquid supply or reconfiguring the trays would change the principles of operation thereof, since it would require completely redesigning the structure of the ice making system, most likely resulting in unexpected and/or unintended results, which is evidence against a prima facie case of obviousness. Thus, a preponderance of evidence supports the allowability of the aforementioned claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIGUEL A DIAZ whose telephone number is (313)446-6587. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM Eastern Time.
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 C. Atkisson can be reached at (571) 270-7740. 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.
/MIGUEL A DIAZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
1 See MPEP § 2173.05 (b) (III) (E).
2 See MPEP § 2143.
3 See MPEP § 2143.
4 See MPEP § 2143.
5 See MPEP § 2143.
6 Disclaimer: failure to include all the intervening limitations will result in a different claim scope, which may require a new grounds of rejection prior to a final determination of allowability.