Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The claims received 8/12/2026 are entered. Claims 2, 6-7, 9-11 and 13-34 are cancelled. Claims 35-48 are new.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of species A in the reply filed on 4/24/2026 is acknowledged.
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) 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schiller et al (US 11,920,845).
Regarding claim 36, Schiller discloses an ice making device comprising:
a tray (160) provided in an ice making chamber and having a cell for generating ice;
a liquid supplier (132) having a sub liquid supplier (any of 250, 140, 142) configured to supply liquid to the at least one cell in an ice making process;
a controller configured to control the liquid supplier,
wherein the controller is configured to reduce an output of the liquid supplier in response to a decrease in distance between the ice generated in the cell and the sub liquid supplier after supplying a cooling power to the tray figure 10; 13:57-61),
wherein the liquid supplier is operated at a first output, the liquid supplier is operated at a second output less than the first output after the liquid supplier is operated at the first output, and the liquid supplier is operated at a third output less than the second output after the liquid supplier is operated at the second output, and wherein a difference between the first output and the second output is different from a difference between the second output and the third output (16:8-20 “vary progressively” the cited paragraph discusses incremental and linear reduction in addition to progressive reduction thus in progressive reduction the output reduction rate is larger in later steps; additionally or alternatively even in linear reduction a single early reduction step is less than a later reduction where several steps are treated collectively, e.g. a first linear reduction is less than the combined reduction of second and third reductions).
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, 3-5, 8, 12, 35, 39-41, and 43-48 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schiller et al (US 11,920,845) in view of Hara et al (US 4,910,974) and as evidenced by Yun (KR10-2014-0061861).
Regarding claim 1, Schiller discloses an ice making device comprising:
a tray (160) provided in an ice making chamber and having at least one cell for generating ice;
a liquid supplier (132) having a sub liquid supplier (any of 250, 140, 142) configured to supply liquid to the at least one cell in an ice making process;
a controller configured to control the liquid supplier (columns 13 and 14 describe control of the liquid supplier),
wherein the controller is configured to reduce an output of the liquid supplier in response to a decrease in distance between the ice generated in the at least one cell and the sub liquid supplier after supplying cooling power to the tray (figure 10; 13:57-61), and
wherein an output reduction rate of the liquid supplier when the ice is generated in the one cell is less than an output reduction rate of the liquid supplier when ice is further generated (16:8-20 “vary progressively” the cited paragraph discusses incremental and linear reduction in addition to progressive reduction thus in progressive reduction the output reduction rate is larger in later steps; additionally or alternatively even in linear reduction a single early reduction step is less than a later reduction where several steps are treated collectively, e.g. a first linear reduction is less than the combined reduction of second and third reductions).
Schiller lacks the tray is formed as “one tray” and “another tray”.
Yun evidences that plural trays making different types of ice is desirable ([0001])
Hara discloses a tray comprising one tray (11) forming a cell and another tray (12) disposed at one side of the one tray and forming another cell of the at least one cell, wherein the liquid supplied by the liquid supplier (22) is supplied to the one cell through said another tray (water flow shown in figure 1 the supplied liquid passes through the second another tray 12 to reach the second tray 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Schiller with another tray as taught by Hara in order to form spherical ice. Yun evidences that plural types of ice are desirable to a consumer and that it is known for an ice maker to include plural tray geometries. Still further it follows that, as the distance between the formed ice and supplier reduces that the flow rate reduces as taught by Schiller and discussed above, when combined with Hara the ice formation within the another tray is closer to the supplier and the flow rate is reduced progressively.
Regarding claim 3, Schiller discloses the liquid supplier further comprises a pump (140) configured to pump the liquid, and wherein the controller is configured to gradually reduce an output of the pump (13:48-49 “progressively decrease”).
Regarding claim 4, Schiller discloses the controller is configured to reduce an output of the liquid supplier based on an elapse of time (figure 10, step 320 and column 15, lines 40-44).
Regarding claim 5, Schiller discloses a temperature sensor for detecting a temperature of the tray, wherein the controller is configured to reduce the output of the liquid supplier according to a change in temperature detected by the temperature sensor (14:8-19).
Regarding claim 8, Schiller discloses the tray comprises a plurality of ice making cells, and wherein the sub liquid supplier comprises a plurality of liquid supply nozzles (142) corresponding to a number of the plurality of ice making cells to spray liquid into each of the plurality of ice making cells (figure 8 shows 2 cells each having a corresponding nozzle).
Regarding claims 12 and 35, Schiller discloses an ice making device comprising:
a tray (160) provided in an ice making chamber and having at least one cell for generating ice;
a liquid supplier (132) having a sub liquid supplier (any of 250, 140, and 142) configured to supply liquid to the cell in an ice making process;
a temperature sensor (14:8-19; also 180 of figure 4) for detecting a temperature of the tray; and
a controller configured to control the liquid supplier (control discussed at at least columns 13-14),
wherein the controller is configured to reduce an output of the liquid supplier in response to a decrease in distance between the ice generated in the at least one cell and the sub liquid supplier after supplying a cooling power to the at least one tray (figure 10; 13:57-61).
Schiller lacks the tray is formed as “one tray” and “another tray”.
Yun evidences that plural trays making different types of ice is desirable ([0001])
Hara discloses a tray comprising one tray (11) forming a cell and another tray (12) disposed at one side of the one tray and forming another cell of the at least one cell, wherein the liquid supplied by the liquid supplier (22) is supplied to the one cell through an opening in said another tray (water flow shown in figure 1 the supplied liquid passes through the second another tray 12 to reach the second tray 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Schiller with another tray as taught by Hara in order to form spherical ice. Yun evidences that plural types of ice are desirable to a consumer and that it is known for an ice maker to include plural tray geometries.
Still further regarding ‘the number of time in reducing’, Schiller discloses that the flow rate “may vary incrementally in any suitable number of stages based on any suitable number of thickness or may vary progressively as the thickness of the ice billet 138 increases” (16:8-20). Schiller does not explicitly state a number of times in reducing.
It has been held that an “obvious to try” rationale when choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success 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 established: (1) a finding that at the time of the invention, there had been a recognized problem or need in the art, which may include a design need or market pressure to solve a problem; (2) a finding that there had been a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions to the recognized need or problem; (3) a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success; and (4) 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. See MPEP § 2143(I) (E).
In the instant case, and as per (1), it should be noted that Schiller provides for a plurality of reductions including linear and progressive reductions. As per (2), based on the above, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that there are only three potential solutions to a number of reductions between the one tray and another tray: more reductions in the one tray, more reductions in the another tray, a same number in both trays. As per (3), one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a greater number of reductions in the another tray cell would have not yielded unpredictable results, since such a reduction in rate would have predictably reduced cavity formation within the ice piece would not change the principles of operation of the prior art, nor would it render the prior art inoperable for its intended purpose. As per (4), one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the as the distance between the ice billet and supplier grows smaller each increment of growth is larger relative to the total distance remaining and thus it follows to more rapidly decrease supply.
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 less reducing times in the one cell compared to the another cell, as a matter of trying a finite number of predictable solutions, in order to form ice with reduced bored holes, without yielding unpredictable results.
Regarding claims 39-41 and 43-48, Schiller, as modified, discloses the ice making device of claim 1, including a cooling pipe (230) but lacks a liquid supply assembly above the cooling pipe. Hara discloses a liquid supply assembly (27) configured to supply liquid to the tray during a liquid supply process (said liquid is ultimately supplied to the tray), wherein the liquid supply assembly is positioned higher than the cooling pipe (14) and the tray is between the liquid supply assembly (27) and the liquid supplier (22). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Schiller with the liquid supply assembly as taught by Hara in order to supply the system with liquid water for ice making.
Claim(s) 37-38 and 42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schiller et al (US 11,920,845), in view of Hara et al (US 4,910,974) and as evidenced by Yun (KR10-2014-0061861), and in further view of Son et al (US 9,234,688).
Regarding claims 37 and 42, Schiller as modified discloses the ice making device of claim 1, but lacks a pusher. Son discloses an ice maker comprising a pusher (162) including a pushing column configured to separate ice from an another tray (120) in an ice separation process, wherein said another tray moves toward the pusher in the ice separation process (shown in figures 11 and 12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided modified Schiller with a pusher as taught by Son in order to prevent ice from sticking to the mold during a harvesting step.
Regarding claim 38, Schiller as modified further discloses the another tray is formed on a non-metallic material to be deformed by the pusher (Son discloses that the upper tray 110 is made of a metallic material and the lower/another tray is made of an elastic material 11:46-48).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive or rendered moot by the new grounds of rejection.
Regarding double patenting, the examiner agrees that the instant amendments have overcome the outstanding double patenting rejections.
Regarding claim 1, applicant argues at page 20 that Schiller does not teach the features of amended claim 1. However Hara is now applied to teach the two part ice tray construction. As the supply of Schiller is decreased as distance decreases and Hara provides that ice formation at the another tray is at a reduced distance than the one tray the supply at the another tray is reduced in the manner explained in the rejection above.
At pages 21 and 22, applicant argues that Schiller does not teach claim 36. However, Schiller discloses incremental and linear reduction in addition to progressive reduction (16:8-20) thus in progressive reduction the output reduction rate is larger in later steps; additionally or alternatively even in linear reduction a single early reduction step is less than a later reduction where several steps are treated collectively, e.g. a first linear reduction is less than the combined reduction of second and third reductions.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ryu et al (US 2023/0027053) two volumes sprayed for ice making
Lanzani (US 4,856,712) water supply pressure is dependent on distance for ice making 2:50-54
Jeong et al (US 12,345,459) plural ice types within ice maker
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER R ZERPHEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5965. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-4:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at 5712707740. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHRISTOPHER R ZERPHEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
Prosecution Insights