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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract recites “present embodiment” and also recites “may” leaving it unclear what is considered the invention. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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, 7-9, 11-14, 16-17, 19-22, 24-25 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 second one tray” and “a second another tray” which renders the claim the indefinite because it is unclear what it meant by “a second one tray” and “a second another tray”. For examination purposes the limitation will be interpreted to be a first tray and a second tray. Clarity is advised.
Claims 2-5, 7-9, 11-14, 16-17, 19-22, 24-25 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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being ant by Kim et al (KR 20130110875).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches an ice making device (100) comprising: a second one tray (300a) that defines a portion of a cell (310a) that is a space in which liquid is phase-changed into ice by cold (fig. 12 illustrates water being changed to circular ice in rea 310a); a second another tray (300b) that defines another portion of the cell (310b) and arranged to be in contact with the second one tray during an ice making process (fig. 10-12) and to be spaced apart from the second one tray during an ice separation process (figs. 12-13); and a sub liquid supplier (400) configured to supply liquid to the cell (arrows in fig. 10).
Regarding claim 2, Kim teaches a position of at least a portion of the sub liquid supplier is changed during the ice separation process (fig. 12).
Regarding claim 3, Kim teaches the sub liquid supplier comprises a liquid supply hole (410) that supplies the liquid, and a position of the liquid supply hole during the ice making process (figs. 10-11) is different from a position of the liquid supply hole during the ice separation process (figs. 12-13).
Regarding claim 4, Kim teaches the sub liquid supplier is arranged to supply liquid into the cell through an opening (311) formed at one side of the second another tray (311 formed on 300b).
Regarding claim 5, Kim teaches while the second another tray moves in a first direction (annotated fig. below), the sub liquid supplier moves in the first direction.
PNG
media_image1.png
542
473
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Kim teaches a supporter (annotated fig. below) configured to support the second another tray (the unnumbered area is capable of supporting 300b), and wherein the sub liquid supplier is coupled to the supporter or the second another tray (400 is coupled to 300b and the unnumbered area).
PNG
media_image2.png
390
548
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Kim teaches the sub liquid supplier comprises a liquid supply hole (410) that supplies the liquid, and wherein the liquid supply hole is arranged to be aligned with an opening (311) formed at one side of the second another tray (fig. 10).
Regarding claim 9, Kim teaches the supporter further comprises a supporter opening (opening in 450) aligned with the liquid supply hole (410) and the opening (310).
Regarding claim 12, Kim teaches the sub liquid supplier comprises an inlet pipe (710), a common pipe (440) connected to the inlet pipe, and supply pipes (430) extended from the common pipe, wherein a number of supply pipes (fig. 10) is equal to a number of cells (fig. 10).
Regarding claim 13, Kim teaches the supporter comprises a supporter opening (area leading into 440), the common pipe is located radially outside the supporter opening (fig. 10), and at least one of the supply pipes extends from the common pipe toward a central portion of the supporter opening (fig. 10).
Regarding claim 16, Kim teaches of the second another tray comprises an opening (311) through which the liquid passes, the supporter comprises a supporter opening in communication with the opening (fig. 10), and the sub liquid supplier is coupled to the supporter to cover the supporter opening (fig. 10).
Regarding claim 17, Kim teaches the second another tray comprises an opening (311) through which the liquid passes, and wherein the sub liquid supplier comprises an inlet pipe (710), and a distribution pipe (440) connected to the inlet pipe and having a liquid supply hole (410) aligned with the opening.
Regarding claim 19, Kim teaches the sub liquid supplier further comprises a coupling body (annotate fig. below) to be counted to the supporter, wherein the coupling body comprises a first body extending from the distribution pipe (left side, fig. 10), and a second body (right side, fig. 10) extending from the first body in a direction crossing the first body (fig. 10).
PNG
media_image3.png
390
548
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 20, Kim teaches the coupling body further comprises a coupling extension (annotated fig. above illustrates 410 extends between 300b and 450) extending from the second body and coupled to the supporter.
Regarding claim 21, Kim teaches the sub liquid supplier further comprises a protrusion (extension of 410) disposed around the liquid supply hole and inserted into an opening (310) of the second another tray (fig. 10).
Regarding claim 22, Kim teaches one surface of the protrusion is rounded (fig. 10) to form a portion of the ice cell.
Regarding claim 24, Kim teaches a heater (heater, pg. 4, paragraph 5) configured to supply heat to the cell during the ice separation process (pg. 4, paragraph 5), and wherein the sub liquid supplier is configured to support the heater (fig. 10).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 11, Kim teaches the supporter comprises a hinge body (rotational arrow, figs. 12-13) that provides a center of rotation (rotation, figs. 12-13), a liquid supply tube (710) is connected to the sub liquid supplier to guide liquid to the sub liquid supplier, and the hinge body comprises an extending rib (one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize 710 would require a structure to attach to 450 to allow supplying of water along with positioning 710 during rotation to prevent 710 from interfering with the opening of 300b) to fix a position of the liquid supply tube (figs. 10-13).
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Lee et al (WO 2020071764).
Regarding claim 25, Kim teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach the second another tray comprises a heater coupling portion to which the heater is coupled, and wherein the heater coupling portion passes through an opening of the second another tray and the sub liquid supplier is arranged to surround the heater coupling portion.
However, Lee teaches the second another tray comprises a heater coupling portion (280, 490) to which the heater is coupled, and wherein the heater coupling portion passes through an opening (324, 214a1) of the second another tray and the sub liquid supplier is arranged to surround the heater coupling portion (fig. 19, 24) to efficiently separate ice.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the ice making device of Kim to include the second another tray comprises a heater coupling portion to which the heater is coupled, and wherein the heater coupling portion passes through an opening of the second another tray and the sub liquid supplier is arranged to surround the heater coupling portion in view of the teachings of Lee to efficiently separate ice.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 14 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.
Claim 14 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.
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
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.
Conclusion
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