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 .
Status
This Office Action is in response to the remarks and amendments filed on 6/18/2026. The objections to the specification have been withdrawn. The 35 USC 112 rejections have been withdrawn. Claims 1-5, 7-9, 11-14, 1617, 19-22, 24-25 remain pending for consideration on the merits.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless 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 a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a sub liquid supplier” in claim 1.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: “a sub liquid supplier” corresponds to supply pipes and nozzles as described in paragraphs 0317-0325 and fig. 14.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-5 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 1 recites “a sub liquid supplier configured to supply the liquid to the cell, wherein the liquid sprayed from the sub liquid supplier is supplied to the cell through the supporter opening and the opening of the other tray” but it is unclear how the supplied liquid from the sub liquid supplier is sprayed from the sub liquid supplier through the supporter opening and the opening of the other tray. Clarity is advised.
Claims 2-5 are rejected based on dependency from a rejected claim.
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, 4-5, 7-9, 16, 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being ant by Lee et al (US 20210318048).
Regarding claim 1, in view of indefiniteness, Lee teaches an ice making device (200) comprising: a one tray (380) that defines a portion of a cell (320a) that is a space in which liquid is phase-changed into ice by cold (paragraph 0179); an other tray (320), other than the one tray, that defines another portion of the cell (fig. 18) and arranged to be in contact with the one tray during an ice making process (figs. 18-20) and to be spaced apart from the second one tray during an ice separation process (figs. 18-20), including an opening (324) formed at one side of the other tray through which the liquid passes (water, paragraph 0220-221); a supporter (300) configured to support the other tray and including a supporter opening (annotated fig. below) in communication with the opening of the other tray and a sub liquid supplier (240) configured to supply liquid to the cell (paragraph 0178) wherein the liquid sprayed from the sub liquid supplier is supplied to the cell through the supporter opening and the opening of the other tray (understood water would pass through both openings as annotated below to the interior of 320a).
PNG
media_image1.png
670
714
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Lee teaches the supporter includes a supporter body configured to form a receiving portion for receiving the other tray (fig. 11 and 18 illustrates 300 as a supporter body that receives 320).
Regarding claim 4, Lee teaches the supporter opening is formed in the supporter body (annotated fig. above).
Regarding claim 5, Lee teaches the supporter includes an opening wall extending from a periphery of the supporter opening (fig. 11 and annotated fig. above illustrates an opening wall extending from the annotated opening in 300).
Regarding claim 7, Lee teaches all the limitations of claim 7 including the sub liquid supplier is coupled to the supporter (figs. 3-4, 18-20). See rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, Lee teaches the sub liquid supplier comprises a liquid supply hole (opening in 240) that supplies the liquid, and wherein the liquid supply hole is arranged to be aligned with an opening (figs. 18-20) formed at one side of the other tray (figs. 18-20).
Regarding claim 9, Lee teaches the supporter further comprises a supporter opening (opening in 240) aligned with the liquid supply hole (figs. 18-20) and the opening (figs.18-20).
Regarding claim 16, Lee teaches all the limitations of claim 16. See rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 21, Lee teaches all the limitations of claim 7 wherein the sub liquid supplier comprises a liquid supply hole (upper opening 240) that supplies the liquid and an outlet opening (lower opening 240) through which the liquid supplied to the cell is discharged (figs. 18-20). See rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 22, Lee teaches the outlet opening is located at one side of the liquid supply hole (figs. 6, 18-20).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 3, 11-14, 17, 19-20, 24-25 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 3, the subject matter which is considered to distinguish from the closest prior art of record, Lee et al (US 20210318048). The prior art of record teaches the sub liquid supplier comprises a liquid supply hole that supplies the liquid in contrast to the claimed features of a position of the liquid supply hole during the ice making process is different from a position of the liquid supply hole during the ice separation process
Regarding claim 11, the subject matter which is considered to distinguish from the closest prior art of record, Lee et al (US 20210318048). The prior art of record teaches wherein the supporter comprises a hinge body that provides a center of rotation (figs. 18-20) in contrast to the claimed features of a liquid supply tube is connected to the sub liquid supplier to guide liquid to the sub liquid supplier, and the hinge body comprises an extending rib.
Regarding claim 12, the subject matter which is considered to distinguish from the closest prior art of record, Lee et al (US 20210318048). The prior art of record teaches the sub liquid supplier comprises an inlet pipe (understood a pipe would supply to 240) in contrast to the claimed features of a common pipe connected to the inlet pipe, and supply pipes extended from the common pipe, wherein a number of supply pipes is equal to a number of cells.
Regarding claim 14, the subject matter which is considered to distinguish from the closest prior art of record, Lee et al (WO 2020071764). The prior art of record teaches a pusher (540) provided spaced apart from the second another tray (fig. 20) by a predetermined distance (space between 540 and 211), wherein while the second another tray (211) moves in a first direction (figs. 22a-c) during the ice separation process in contrast to the claimed features of a pusher provided spaced apart from the second another tray by a predetermined distance, wherein while the second another tray moves in a first direction during the ice separation process, the supply pipe is moved in a direction closer to the pusher, or the pusher is configured to provide a path along which at least one of the supply pipes moves during the ice separation process.
Regarding claim 17, the subject matter which is considered to distinguish from the closest prior art of record, Lee et al (US 20210318048). The prior art of record teaches the other tray comprises an opening (324) and having a liquid supply hole (upper opening of 240) aligned with the opening through which the liquid passes (figs. 18-20) in contrast to the claimed features of wherein the sub liquid supplier comprises an inlet pipe, and a distribution pipe connected to the inlet pipe.
Regarding claim 24, the subject matter which is considered to distinguish from the closest prior art of record, Lee et al (US 20210318048). The prior art of record teaches a heater (290) configured to supply heat to the cell during the ice separation process in contrast to the claimed features of the sub liquid supplier is configured to support the heater.
Conclusion
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 ELIZABETH J MARTIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3840. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-3:00 CT pm M-F.
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, Jerry-Daryl Fletcher can be reached at (571) 270-5054. 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.
/ELIZABETH J MARTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights