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 .
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 32-35 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 32 recites the limitation “the sub liquid supplier” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, the examiner is going to treat the claim as if it read, “a
Claim 33 recites the limitation "the component" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, the examiner is going to treat the claim as if it read, “the liquid supplier”.
With respect to claims 34 and 35, the examiner has further interpreted the claimed “component” to be a “sub liquid supplier” as claim 32 establishes that the pusher provides a path for the sub liquid supplier to move and there is no disclosure in applicants’ originally filed Specification for moving a sub liquid supplier and an additional component as claimed. As such it is assumed that Applicant intended “the component” in claims 34 and 35 to also be “the sub liquid supplier” and did not intend to include subject matter that was not supported by Applicant’s originally filed disclosure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KR20200057604 to Yonghyun, (provided by applicant with the IDS filed September 6, 2024) hereinafter referred to as Yonghyun, (see English language translation provided herewith).
In reference to claim 1, Yonghyun discloses the claimed invention including:
A refrigerator (1) comprising:
a storage chamber (3) where an item is stored;
a cooler configured to supply cold to the storage chamber (inferred from the description of a refrigerator that cools the inside of the storage space using cold air);
one tray (150) that defines a portion of a cell that is a space in which liquid is phase-changed into ice by the cold;
another tray (250) that defines another portion of the cell and arranged to be in contact with the second one tray during an ice making process and to be spaced apart from the second one tray during an ice separation process;
a pusher (400) spaced apart from said another tray (250) by a predetermined distance (as seen in figure 39-40);
wherein the pusher (400) provides a path for a component to move, see figure 44, wherein the component (200) is configured to be moved along the path in a state in which the component is received in the path. See below for the examiner’s definition of the path represented by the arrow. It is noted that the term “path” does not have a special definition in Applicant’s specification. As such, the term “path” is given its broadest reasonable interpretation. The term “path” is extremely broad and the broadest reasonable interpretation is a course or route1. The curved arrow below is analogous to Applicant’s claimed “path”. Further the pusher is to “provide a path”. This is another extremely broad limitation that does not explicitly require any specific relationship between the pusher and the path except that it is “provided”. “Provides” can reasonably be interpreted to mean to supply, make available2. Since the “path” is along the upper side of the pusher, it is reasonable to consider the upper part of the pusher as “providing” a “path” for a component. Since the component (200) moves along this path, under the Broadest reasonable interpretation, pusher (400) of Yonghyun meets the limitations of the claim.
PNG
media_image1.png
330
442
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In reference to claim 2, Yonghyun discloses the claimed invention.
wherein at least a portion of the component (200) is movably provided to be located at different positions during the ice making process and the ice separation process, See figures 41-44.
In reference to claim 3, Yonghyun discloses the claimed invention.
the pusher (400) is configured to press said another tray or the ice (I) in the ice separation process in a state in which the component is received in the path, see figures 43-44.
In reference to claim 4, Yonghyun discloses the claimed invention.
the pusher (400) includes a pushing column (420a), and wherein the path extends in a longitudinal direction of the pushing column (see annotated reference above with respect to claim 1 to see that the path (curved arrow) extends along the column (420a).
Claims 1-11, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 4,910,974 to Hara.
In reference to claims 1 and 13, Hara discloses the claimed invention including:
A refrigerator comprising a storage chamber and cooler (inferred from the description of an ice maker which would necessarily require a source of refrigeration, and the refrigerator described in column 2 lines 4-9) comprising:
one tray (11) that defines a portion of a cell that is a space (13) in which liquid is phase-changed into ice by cold;
another tray (12) that defines another portion of the cell (13) and arranged to be in contact with the one tray during an ice making process (as seen in figure 5) and to be spaced apart from the second one tray during an ice separation process (as seen in figure 7);
a sub liquid supplier/component (38) configured to supply the liquid to the cell; and
a pusher (17, reasonably considered a pusher since it pushes the lower tray (12) away from the upper tray (11)) spaced apart from the said another tray (12) by a predetermined distance, wherein the pusher provides a path for the sub liquid supplier (38) to move. See below for the examiner’s definition of the path represented by the arrow. As above, “providing a path” is an extremely broad limitation that does not require any specific structure other than the pusher to make available a route. Since the “path” is made available by extending and retracting the pusher (17), the ice maker of Hara can reasonably be considered to disclose the claimed feature.
PNG
media_image2.png
396
505
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In reference to claims 2, Hara discloses the claimed invention including:
at least a portion of the component (38) is movably provided to be located at different positions during the ice making process and the ice separation process
In reference to claims 3, Hara discloses the claimed invention including:
pusher is configured to press said another tray (12). As seen in figure 6, pusher (17) is pushing said another tray (12) in the ice separation process.
In reference to claims 4, Hara discloses the claimed invention including:
Pusher (17) includes a pushing column, and
wherein the path extends in a longitudinal direction of the pushing column, see annotated reference above.
In reference to claims 5, Hara discloses the claimed invention including:
the component is a sub liquid supplier (38) configured to supply the liquid to the cell.
In reference to claims 6, and 14, Hara discloses the claimed invention including:
the pusher (17) is disposed at one side (upper side) of said another tray (12), as seen in figure 5.
In reference to claim 7, Hara discloses the claimed invention including:
the sub liquid supplier (38) comprises:
a first through hole (where pie 21 enters bin 19) through which the liquid is introduced,
a second through hole (25) through which the liquid is discharged, and
a pipe (24) connecting the first through hole and the second through hole.
In reference to claim 8, Hara discloses the claimed invention including:
wherein the second through hole (25) is arranged to supply liquid into the ice making cell through an opening (12a) formed at one side of said another tray (12).
In reference to claim 9, Hara discloses the claimed invention including:
wherein the second through hole (25) is movably provided to be located at different positions during the ice making process (as seen in figure 5) and the ice separation process (as seen in figure 7).
In reference to claim 10, Hara discloses the claimed invention including
the second through hole (25) is provided so that a position of the second through hole changes while said another tray (12) moves.
In reference to claim 11, Hara discloses the claimed invention including
while said another tray (12) moves in a first direction (clockwise from figure 5 to 7), the second through hole (25) moves in the first direction (clockwise from figure 5 to 7).
In reference to claim 15, Hara discloses the claimed invention including:
wherein the pusher (17) comprises a through hole (17a) that allows the sub liquid supplier (38) to move through an interior (of the refrigerator in which it is installed). Note that this claim is again very broad. It should be noted that the claim does not further specify the structure which is to include the interior. It’s simply “an interior” of some unclaimed structure. The functional recitation of the through hole that “allows the sub liquid supplier to move through an interior” is also extremely broad. Since the hole at 17a is necessary for connection to the lower tray (12) it is considered configured to allow the sub liquid supplier to move through an interior.
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.
Claims 32-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hara.
In reference to claim 32, Hara discloses the claimed invention including:
A refrigerator (inferred from the description of an ice maker which would necessarily require a source of refrigeration, and described in column 2 lines 4-9) comprising:
one tray (11) that defines a portion of a cell that is a space in which liquid is phase- changed into ice by cold;
another tray (12) that defines another portion of the cell and arranged to be in contact with the one tray during an ice making process (figure 5) and to be spaced apart from the one tray during an ice separation process (figure 8); and
a pusher (17) spaced apart from said another tray (12) by a predetermined distance (as seen in figure 8) and that provides a path for a sub liquid supplier (38) to move (see annotated reference above with respect to claim 13 for the examiner’s definition of the claimed “path”),
wherein the pusher includes a pushing column (portion between AM and 17a),
the path extends in a longitudinal direction of the pushing column (as seen in the annotated reference above with respect to claim 13).
Hara fails to explicitly disclose a length of the path in the longitudinal direction of the pushing column is greater than a diameter of the pushing column. It is noted that the only difference between Hara and the claimed invention is a recitation of the relative dimensions of the claimed device. Further, it appears that a pushing column of the claimed dimensions would not operate differently than the prior art device. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to modify Hara as claimed such that path in the longitudinal direction of the pushing column is greater than a diameter of the pushing colum since it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
In reference to claim 33, Hara discloses the claimed invention including:
wherein the pusher (17) comprises a through hole (17a) that allows the sub liquid supplier (38) to move through an interior (of the refrigerator in which it is installed). Note that this claim is again very broad. It should be noted that the claim does not further specify the structure which is to include the interior. It’s simply “an interior” of some unclaimed structure. The functional recitation of the through hole that “allows the sub liquid supplier to move through an interior” is also extremely broad. Since the hole at 17a is necessary for connection to the lower tray (12) it is considered configured to allow the sub liquid supplier to move through an interior.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16 and 17 are 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.
Claims 34 and 35 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 29, 2026 have been fully considered but they are respectfully not found persuasive.
Insomuch as Applicant’s arguments still apply to the above rejections, specifically, Applicant argues that the recessed groove portion of Younghyun does not provide a component for a path as claimed. In the present rejection, the examiner has defined the path as the path taken by the lower assembly (200). The language of the claims is such that the pusher “provides a path” for a component. As stated above and repeated here, the term “path” does not have a special definition in Applicant’s specification. As such, the term “path” is given its broadest reasonable interpretation. The term “path” is extremely broad, and the broadest reasonable interpretation is a course or route. The curved arrow illustrated in the annotated figure within the rejection of claim 1 is analogous to Applicant’s claimed “path”. Further the pusher is to “provide a path”. This is another extremely broad limitation that does not explicitly require any specific relationship between the pusher and the path except that it is “provided”. “Provides” can reasonably be interpreted to mean to supply or make available. Since the “path” is along the upper side of the pusher, it is reasonable to consider the upper part of the pusher as “providing” a “path” for a component since the pusher moving way from the tray makes the path available. Since the component (200) moves along this path, under the Broadest reasonable interpretation, pusher (400) of Yonghyun meets the limitations of the claim. It is suggested that Applicant amend the claims to specifically require the path to be within the pusher and that the component moves through the path such that the claim language explicitly and clearly requires some component to move through a path through the pusher. Such language is present in dependent claims 16 and 34 which if included in the independent claims would read over the prior art of record.
With respect to Applicant’s arguments regarding the Hara reference, these arguments are largely the same as the arguments against the Younghyun as presented above. For similar reasons as those applied above, Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive. The examiner’s position comes down to the broad, ambiguous language of the claimed path that is to be provided by a pusher. The examiner maintains that a pusher “providing a path” does not have the structural relationship that Applicant appears to intend to be claiming of a path within the pusher, and that a water sub supplier moves through such that the sub supplier moves through the pusher. The presence of a dependent claim that adds a particular limitation gives rise to a presumption that the limitation in question is not present in the independent claim, see Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Thus, the presence of dependent claims 16 and 34 which require the sub liquid supplier to enter an inside of the pusher and pass through is further evidence that the independent claims 13 and 32 do not require this limitation and is broader. Since Hara can be interpreted to read on the extremely broad language of claims 1 and 13, a rejection of the claims under 35 USC 102(a)(1) is proper.
For at least these reasons presented above, the rejection of the claims is proper and remain.
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 CASSEY D BAUER whose telephone number is (571)270-7113. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs: 10AM-8PM (ET).
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, Frantz Jules can be reached at 571-272-6681. 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.
/CASSEY D BAUER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
1 https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/path
2 https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/provide
Prosecution Insights