CTNF 18/844,884 CTNF 89375 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 06-49-07 The information disclosure statement filed 6 September 2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. Specifically, the document indicated with strikethrough is missing from the file. Drawings 06-22-07 AIA The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 471, 142 . Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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. 06-27 AIA In addition to Replacement Sheets containing the corrected drawing figure(s), applicant is required to submit a marked-up copy of each Replacement Sheet including annotations indicating the changes made to the previous version. The marked-up copy must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheets” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings. See 37 CFR 1.121(d)(1). Failure to timely submit the proposed drawing and marked-up copy will result in the abandonment of the application. Specification 07-44 AIA The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: claim term “fastening member” is absent from the disclosure . 06-31 AIA The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “and supported” appears to be in error for “and is supported”; “and seated on the bracket” appears to be in error for “and is seated […]”; “and in contact” appears to be in error for “and is in contact”; “and spaced apart” appears to be in error for “and is spaced apart” . Appropriate correction is required. 07-29-01 AIA Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: “and the extension is seated” appears to be in error for “and on which the extension is seated” . Appropriate correction is required. 07-29-01 AIA Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: “and provided in an ice making chamber” appears to be in error for “and which is provided […]”; “and seated on the bracket” appears to be in error for “and is seated […]”; “and in contact” appears to be in error for “and is in contact”; “and spaced apart” appears to be in error for “and is spaced apart” . Appropriate correction is required. 07-29-01 AIA Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: “and an extension extending” appears to be in error for “the second one tray further comprises an extension extending”; “and in contact” appears to be in error for “and is in contact” . Appropriate correction is required. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA 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. 07-30-05 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: coupling member (i.e. member [generic placeholder] for coupling [functional language]) in claims 6-7; liquid supply assembly (i.e. assembly [generic placeholder] for liquid supply(ing) [functional language]) in claims 8-9 and 17-18; boss coupling portion (i.e. portion [generic placeholder] for boss coupling [functional language]) in claim 16; fastening member (i.e. member [generic placeholder] for fastening [functional language]) in claim 16. 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. In the case of coupling member, screw S1 is found to be the corresponding structure(s) in the specification; in the case of liquid supplying assembly, pipe is found to be the corresponding structure(s) in the specification; in the case of boss coupling portion, protrusion is found to be the corresponding structure(s) in the specification; in the case of fastening member, please see below. 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 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 1-18 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 the limitation “a second one tray”. This limitation is unclear in that there is no “first” one tray. As presented, the limitation calls into question the existence of a first one tray. Claim 1 also recites the limitation “a sub second one tray”. As noted above, the limitation as presented calls into question whether there is a first sub one tray. Claim 1 also recites the limitation “a second another tray”. As presented, the limitation calls into question the existence of a first another tray. In view that there appears to only be one tray set, Applicant should consider whether the “second” terminology should be maintained. Examiner notes that the specification may need to be amended according to the changes made to the claim(s). Claim 2-18 are rejected insofar as they are dependent on claim 1 and therefore include the same error(s). 07-34-01 Claims 6 and 7 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 6 recites the limitation “a second coupler” and claim 7 refers to “a third coupler”. As presented, the limitations call into question whether there are three distinct optional couplers or if there are three total couplers and the dependency of claims 6 and 7 should be amended. Clarification is requested. 07-34-01 Claim 7 is 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 7 recites the limitation “the coupling member”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Should claim 7 depend on claim 6? 07-34-01 Claims 14-16 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 14 recites the limitation “a fourth wall”. This limitation calls into question whether there are second and third walls. Should claim 14 depend from claim 11? Claims 15-16 are rejected insofar as they are dependent on claim 14 and therefore include the same error(s). 07-34-01 Claim 16 is 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. 07-34-23 Claim limitation “fastening member” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Applicant may: (a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; (b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)). If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either: (a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181. 07-34-01 Claims 20-21 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 20 recites the limitation “a second one tray”. This limitation is unclear in that there is no “first” one tray. As presented, the limitation calls into question the existence of a first one tray. Claim 20 also recites the limitation “a second another tray”. As presented, the limitation calls into question the existence of a first another tray. In view that there appears to only be one tray set, Applicant should consider whether the “second” terminology should be maintained. Examiner notes that the specification may need to be amended according to the changes made to the claim(s). Claim 21 is rejected insofar as it is dependent on claim 20 and therefore includes the same error(s). 07-34-01 Claim 21 is 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 21 recites the limitation “a sub second one tray”. As noted above, the limitation as presented calls into question whether there is a first sub one tray. Applicant should consider whether the “second” terminology should be maintained. Examiner notes that the specification may need to be amended according to the changes made to the claim(s). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 1-3, 8-12, 14, 15, and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (KR 20210031251: cited by Applicant, English Translation provided by Examiner) . Regarding claim 1, Lee et al. shows an ice making device (see at least ice maker #200) comprising: a bracket provided in an ice making chamber (see at least bracket #220); a second one tray including a sub second one tray that defines a portion of a cell for generating ice (see at least “the first tray 320 may define a first cell 321a that is a part of the ice making cell 320a”) and an extension that extends from the sub second one tray and supported by the bracket (see at least tray cover #300; “The first tray cover 300 may further include a plurality of hooks 307 coupled to the first wall 221 of the bracket 220.”); and a second another tray that defines another portion of the cell (see at least “The second tray 380 may include a second tray wall 381 forming a part of the ice making cell 320a.”) and in contact with the second one tray during an ice making process and spaced apart from the second one tray during an ice separation process (see at least “The first tray 320 may form at least a part of the ice making cell (refer to 320a of FIG. 49 ). The second tray 380 may include a second tray 380 forming another part of the ice making cell (refer to 320a of FIG. 49 ). The second tray 380 may be disposed to be relatively movable with respect to the first tray 320. The second tray 380 may perform linear motion or rotational motion.”). Regarding claim 2, Lee et al. further shows wherein the bracket includes a through hole and the sub second one tray passes through the through hole (see at least Figure 6, hole #221a; “The bracket 220 may include a first wall 221 in which a through hole 221a is formed.”; see also Figure 2, the ice maker trays pass through the through hole). Regarding claim 3, Lee et al. further shows wherein the bracket comprises a first wall on which the through hole is formed and the extension is seated, and wherein the first wall is provided with a coupler for coupling the second one tray (see at least “The first wall 221 may further include a support wall 221d supporting the first tray assembly. At least a portion of the support wall 221d may extend in a horizontal direction.”). Regarding claim 8, Lee et al. further shows further comprising a liquid supply assembly configured to supply liquid to the second one tray during a liquid supply process (see at least water supply unit #240), and wherein the first wall is provided with a blocking wall to limit a flow of liquid supplied to the second one tray (see at least “Meanwhile, a water supply unit 240 may be coupled to the bracket 220. The water supply unit 240 includes a first portion 241, a second portion 242 disposed to be inclined with respect to the first portion 241, and a third portion extending from both sides of the first portion 241 (243) may be included. A through hole 244 may be formed in the first part 241. Alternatively, the through hole 244 may be formed between the first part 241 and the second part 242. The water supplied to the water supply part 240 may flow downward along the second part 242 and then be discharged from the water supply part 240 through the through hole 244.”: in view that the water supply unit 240 is coupled to the bracket, and thus to the first wall of the bracket, the blocking wall provided with the water supply unit can be understood to be provided to the first wall). Regarding claim 9, Lee et al. further shows wherein the extension is provided with a discharge passage for discharging dropped liquid, and wherein the first wall is provided with a receiving groove that receives the discharge passage (see at least “The water supply part 240 may be located close to the first extension part 213a. The first tray assembly 301 may include a pair of guide slots 302, and the water supply unit 240 may be located in a region between the pair of guide slots 302.”). Regarding claim 10, Lee et al. further shows wherein the extension is provided with a plurality of hinge portions to which a shaft providing a center of rotation is coupled (see at least “A through hole 282 may be formed in an extension portion 281 extending downward on one side of the first tray cover 300. A through hole 404 may be formed in the extension part 403 extending to one side of the second tray supporter 400. The ice maker 200 may further include a shaft 440 (or a rotation shaft) passing through the through holes 282 and 404 together.”, and wherein when the extension is seated on the first wall, the plurality of hinge portions passes through the through hole (see Figures 5 and 59: the hinge of the ice maker trays is situated through the through hole). Regarding claim 11, Lee et al. further shows further comprising a driver that generates a driving force to move the second another tray, wherein the bracket further comprises a second wall extending from the first wall and having an installation wall on which the driver is installed, and a third wall extending from the first wall and spaced apart from the second wall (see at least “The bracket 220 may further include a third wall 223 on which the driving part 480 is installed. The third wall 223 may extend from the first wall 221. At least a portion of the third wall 223 may extend in the vertical direction. At least a portion of the third wall 223 may be disposed to face the second wall 222 while being spaced apart from the second wall 222. At least a part of the ice making cell (refer to 320a of FIG. 49) may be positioned between the second wall 222 and the second wall 223. The driving part 480 may be installed on the third wall 223 between the second wall 222 and the third wall 223. Alternatively, the driving unit 480 may be installed on the third wall 223 so that the third wall 223 is positioned between the second wall 222 and the driving unit 480.”: Examiner notes that the third wall may be considered the second wall and vis-versa). Regarding claim 12, Lee et al. further shows further comprising a partition plate that is coupled to at least one of the second wall or the third wall and that restricts movement of the ice separated from the cell in one direction (see at least Figure 38: “The first extension part 413a is more of a portion to which the fourth wall 224 is connected among the second wall 222 or the third wall 223 of the bracket 220 than the second extension part 413b. It may be located closer to the edge that is located on the opposite side.”). Regarding claim 14, Lee et al. further shows further comprising a pusher configured to press the second another tray so that ice is easily separated from the cell during the ice separation process (see at least pusher #540), and wherein the bracket further includes a fourth wall extending from the first wall and on which the pusher is installed (see at least “The bracket 220 may further include a fourth wall 224 to which the second pusher 540 is fixed. The fourth wall 224 may extend from the first wall 221.”). Regarding claim 15, Lee et al. further shows wherein the pusher comprises a plate and a pushing column extending from the plate, wherein the fourth wall is provided with a seating groove for seating the plate (see at least “A seating groove 224a for seating the second pusher 540 may be provided in the fourth wall 224.”), wherein a coupling protrusion is formed in the seating groove (best seen in Figures 56-60), and wherein a coupling hole through which the coupling protrusion passes is formed in the plate (see at least “A fastening hole 224b through which a fastening member for fastening to the second pusher 540 passes may be formed in the mounting groove 224a.”). Regarding claim 17, Lee et al. further shows further comprising a liquid supply assembly configured to supply liquid to the second one tray during a liquid supply process (see at least water supply part #240), wherein the bracket comprises an extension wall that extends from a position lower than the through hole and that the liquid falls (see at least “Meanwhile, a water supply unit 240 may be coupled to the bracket 220. The water supply unit 240 includes a first portion 241, a second portion 242 disposed to be inclined with respect to the first portion 241, and a third portion extending from both sides of the first portion 241 (243) may be included. A through hole 244 may be formed in the first part 241. Alternatively, the through hole 244 may be formed between the first part 241 and the second part 242. The water supplied to the water supply part 240 may flow downward along the second part 242 and then be discharged from the water supply part 240 through the through hole 244.”: in view that the water supply unit 240 is coupled to the bracket, the blocking wall provided with the water supply unit can be understood to be an extension wall of the bracket”, wherein a liquid through hole through which liquid passes is formed in the extension wall (see at least “A through hole 244 may be formed in the first part 241. Alternatively, the through hole 244 may be formed between the first part 241 and the second part 242. The water supplied to the water supply part 240 may flow downward along the second part 242 and then be discharged from the water supply part 240 through the through hole 244.). Regarding claim 18, Lee et al. further shows wherein the bracket further comprises a circumferential portion extending from the extension wall (see at least Figures 5 and 49, #240 includes a circumferential section extending upward from the extending wall), and wherein the circumferential portion comprises at least one of a seating end seated on an adjacent structure or a bent wall to prevent interference with the adjacent structure during an installation process of the bracket (see at least Figures 5 and 49, #240 includes a seating end that seats on the wall of the bracket) . 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (KR 20210031251: cited by Applicant, English Translation provided by Examiner) . Regarding claim 20, Lee et al. shows an ice making device comprising: a bracket in which a through hole is formed and provided in an ice making chamber (see at least Figure 6, bracket #220; hole #221a; “The bracket 220 may include a first wall 221 in which a through hole 221a is formed.”; see also Figure 2, the ice maker trays pass through the through hole); a second one tray that defines a portion of a cell for generating ice (see at least “the first tray 320 may define a first cell 321a that is a part of the ice making cell 320a”) and seated on the bracket in a state in which the second one tray passes through the through hole (see at least tray cover #300; “The first tray cover 300 may further include a plurality of hooks 307 coupled to the first wall 221 of the bracket 220.”: tray #320 passes through the through hole and is seated on the bracket via the cover); an insulation member that surrounds an outer surface of the second one tray and has a first opening through which the second one tray passes (see at least second tray cover #360, which will have at least some insulation properties, and that surrounds an outer surface of tray #320: “The second tray 380 may include a peripheral wall 387 surrounding a part of the first tray 320 in a state in contact with the first tray 320. The second tray cover 360 may surround at least a portion of the peripheral wall 387.”); and a second another tray that defines another portion of the cell (see at least “The second tray 380 may include a second tray wall 381 forming a part of the ice making cell 320a.”) and in contact with the second one tray during an ice making process and spaced apart from the second one tray during an ice separation process (see at least “The first tray 320 may form at least a part of the ice making cell (refer to 320a of FIG. 49 ). The second tray 380 may include a second tray 380 forming another part of the ice making cell (refer to 320a of FIG. 49 ). The second tray 380 may be disposed to be relatively movable with respect to the first tray 320. The second tray 380 may perform linear motion or rotational motion.”). Regarding claim 21, Lee et al. further shows wherein the second one tray comprises a sub second one tray that defines the portion of the cell (see at least “the first tray 320 may define a first cell 321a that is a part of the ice making cell 320a”) and an extension extending from the sub second one tray (see at least tray cover #300; “The first tray cover 300 may further include a plurality of hooks 307 coupled to the first wall 221 of the bracket 220.”), and wherein the insulation member surrounds the sub second one tray and in contact with one surface of the extension (see at least “The second tray 380 and the second tray case may be combined. For example, after placing the second tray cover 360 on the upper side of the second tray 380, and placing the second tray supporter 400 on the lower side of the second tray 380, 2 The tray cover 360, the second tray 380, and the second tray supporter 400 may be combined.”; “A through hole 282 may be formed in an extension portion 281 extending downward on one side of the first tray cover 300. A through hole 404 may be formed in the extension part 403 extending to one side of the second tray supporter 400. The ice maker 200 may further include a shaft 440 (or a rotation shaft) passing through the through holes 282 and 404 together.”) Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 4-7, 13, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR 20210031251: cited by Applicant, English Translation provided by Examiner) . Lee et al. discloses all the elements of claims 3, 12, and 15, upon which claims 4-7, 13, and 16 depend. See rejection(s) above. Regarding claims 4-7, Lee et al. is silent regarding wherein the coupler comprises a first coupler having a coupling groove, and wherein the extension is provided with a coupling protrusion inserted into the coupling groove; wherein the first coupler extends downward from the first wall to form the coupling groove; or wherein the coupler comprises a second coupler protruding from a surface forming the through hole, and wherein the extension is provided with a coupling hole for coupling to the second coupler by a coupling member; or wherein the coupler comprises a third coupler for coupling the coupling member passing through the extension. There is no evidence of record that establishes that providing wherein the coupler comprises a first coupler having a coupling groove, and wherein the extension is provided with a coupling protrusion inserted into the coupling groove; wherein the first coupler extends downward from the first wall to form the coupling groove; or wherein the coupler comprises a second coupler protruding from a surface forming the through hole, and wherein the extension is provided with a coupling hole for coupling to the second coupler by a coupling member; or wherein the coupler comprises a third coupler for coupling the coupling member passing through the extension would result in a difference in function of the Lee et al. device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the device of Lee et al., would have reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears that the device would function as intended being given the claimed coupler type(s). Lastly, Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed coupler type(s) solves any stated problem, indicating that “The coupler may include a first coupler having a coupling groove. The extension may be provided with a coupling protrusion inserted into the coupling groove. The first coupler may be extended downward from the first wall to form the coupling groove. The coupler may include a second coupler protruding from a surface forming the through hole. The extension may be provided with a coupling hole for coupling to the second coupler by a coupling member. The coupler may include a third coupler for coupling the coupling member passing through the extension” (see paragraphs [23]-[26]), and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the coupler type(s) as claimed such that it/they produce(s) an unexpected result. It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the device of Lee et al. with wherein the coupler comprises a first coupler having a coupling groove, and wherein the extension is provided with a coupling protrusion inserted into the coupling groove; wherein the first coupler extends downward from the first wall to form the coupling groove; or wherein the coupler comprises a second coupler protruding from a surface forming the through hole, and wherein the extension is provided with a coupling hole for coupling to the second coupler by a coupling member; or wherein the coupler comprises a third coupler for coupling the coupling member passing through the extension as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art. Regarding claim 13, Lee et al. is silent regarding wherein the partition plate comprises a plurality of extensions having a hook, and wherein a hole for coupling the hook is formed in at least one of the second wall or the third wall. There is no evidence of record that establishes that providing wherein the partition plate comprises a plurality of extensions having a hook, and wherein a hole for coupling the hook is formed in at least one of the second wall or the third wall would result in a difference in function of the Lee et al. device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the device of Lee et al., would have reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears that the device would function as intended being given the claimed coupler type(s). Lastly, Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed coupler type(s) solves any stated problem, indicating that “The partition plate may include a plurality of extensions having hook. A hole for coupling the hook may be formed in the second wall and the third wall.” (see paragraph [34]), and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the coupler type(s) as claimed such that it/they produce(s) an unexpected result. It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the device of Lee et al. with wherein the partition plate comprises a plurality of extensions having a hook, and wherein a hole for coupling the hook is formed in at least one of the second wall or the third wall as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art. Regarding claim 16, Lee et al. is silent regarding wherein a coupling boss is formed in the seating groove, the plate is provided with a boss coupling portion that receives the coupling boss, and a fastening member is coupled to the boss coupling portion and the coupling boss. There is no evidence of record that establishes that providing wherein a coupling boss is formed in the seating groove, the plate is provided with a boss coupling portion that receives the coupling boss, and a fastening member is coupled to the boss coupling portion and the coupling boss would result in a difference in function of the Lee et al. device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the device of Lee et al., would have reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears that the device would function as intended being given the claimed coupler type(s). Lastly, Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed coupler type(s) solves any stated problem, indicating that “A coupling boss may be formed in the seating groove. The plate may be provided with a boss coupling portion that receives the coupling boss. A coupling member may be coupled to the boss coupling portion and the coupling boss.” (see paragraph [38]), and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the coupler type(s) as claimed such that it/they produce(s) an unexpected result. It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the device of Lee et al. with wherein a coupling boss is formed in the seating groove, the plate is provided with a boss coupling portion that receives the coupling boss, and a fastening member is coupled to the boss coupling portion and the coupling boss as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAVIA SULLENS whose telephone number is (571)272-3749. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 6:30-4:30 Eastern. 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 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. /TAVIA SULLENS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/844,884 Page 2 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/844,884 Page 3 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/844,884 Page 4 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/844,884 Page 5 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/844,884 Page 6 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/844,884 Page 7 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/844,884 Page 8 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/844,884 Page 10 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/844,884 Page 11 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/844,884 Page 12 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/844,884 Page 13 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/844,884 Page 14 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/844,884 Page 15 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/844,884 Page 16 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/844,884 Page 17 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/844,884 Page 18 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/844,884 Page 19 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/844,884 Page 20 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/844,884 Page 21 Art Unit: 3763
Prosecution Insights