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 of Claims
The Office Action is in response to the remarks and amendments filed on 5/7/2026. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are pending for consideration in this Office Action.
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.
Claims 1-5, 9-11, 13-15 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dirnberger et al. (US20170176080A1) in view of Boarman et al. (US20140165605A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Dirnberger teaches a refrigerator appliance [where the ice making tray 12 is fitted into a door of a refrigerator or freezer; 0031] defining a vertical direction, a lateral direction, and a transverse direction [where the vertical, lateral and transverse directions are inherent to a three-dimensional object], comprising:
a cabinet defining a chilled chamber [a refrigerator or freezer where the refrigerator or freezer have a cabinet door; 0031];
a door movable between a closed position enclosing the chilled chamber and an open position providing access to the chilled chamber [where the cabinet door is opened and closed; 0031]; and
an ice making assembly [ice-maker 10, Figure 1 ] mounted to the door of the refrigerator appliance [where ice making tray 12 and at least some of the further components of the ice maker are fitted into a door of a refrigerator or freezer; 0031] , the ice making assembly comprising:
an icemaker mounted to the door [where the ice maker 10 is fitted into a door; 0031];
an ice tray [ice-making tray 12, Figure 1] rotatably mounted to the icemaker frame [via axis of rotation 26, reduction gear 28 and drive unit 24, Figure 1] and defining a plurality of mold cavities [ice piece production cavities 36 a, Figure 2] for receiving water [from water supply device 14, Figure 1] that is formed into ice [where water in the ice-making tray 12 forms ice; 0031];
a drive motor [electric motor drive unit 24, Figure 1; 0029] operably coupled to the ice tray to rotate the ice tray [via reduction gear unit 28 along axis of rotation 26, Figure 1; 0029] and harvest the ice formed within the plurality of mold cavities [where the ice-making tray 12 must be rotatable in order that a batch of ice pieces can be ejected from the ice-making tray 12 when production is complete; 0029]; and
a splash shield [sidewall arrangement 46, Figure 3] extending from a top edge of the ice tray to prevent splashing from the plurality of mold cavities [where the ice-making tray 12a comprises a top tray part 44a which forms a side wall arrangement 46a which extends upwards starting from the upper cavity edge and runs along the rectangular tray periphery; 0033], wherein the splash shield is straight or linear [where the splash shield extends linearly along edge of the rectangular tray, along the direction of axis of rotation 26a, 0033, as seen in Figure 2].
The combined teachings do not explicitly teach the door is rotatably mounted to the cabinet and rotatable between a closed position enclosing the chilled chamber and an open position providing access to the chilled chamber.
However, Boarman teaches an ice maker for making substantially clear ice pieces [0002] where a refrigerator [refrigerator 50, Figure 2] includes a door [door 56, Figure 2] rotatably mounted to the cabinet rotatable between a closed position enclosing the chilled chamber [as door 56 is seen closing refrigerator compartment 60 in Figure 1] and an open position providing access to the chilled chamber [as door 56 is seen opening refrigerator compartment 60 in Figure 2] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique, rotatable doors, to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., providing easy access to the interior of the refrigerator.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to have where the door is rotatably mounted to the cabinet and rotatable between a closed position enclosing the chilled chamber and an open position providing access to the chilled chamber in view of the teachings of Boarman where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., providing easy access to the interior of the refrigerator.
The combined teachings further do not explicitly teach an icemaker frame structure mounted to the door.
However, Boarman teaches an ice maker for making substantially clear ice pieces [0002] where the icemaker frame [stationary support members 72 of ice maker 52, Figure 4] is mounted to the door [door 56, Figure 2] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e., securing the ice maker assembly to the door.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to have where the frame structure is mounted to the door in view of the teachings of Boarman where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results, i.e, securing the ice maker assembly to the door.
Regarding Claim 2, Dirnberger, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and further teaches wherein the splash shield [side wall arrangement 46a, Figure 3] extends upward toward a center of the ice tray at an extension angle measured relative to a horizontal plane [where the long-side wall sections 48a are inclined towards one another in the direction towards the upper edge 54a of the sidewall arrangement 46a, Figure 3; 0038].
Regarding Claim 3, Dirnberger, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 2 and further teaches, wherein the extension angle [annotated Figure 4] is between about 45 and 85 degrees [where the sidewall sections of top tray part 44a are inclined by 62.3 degrees, see annotated Figure 4 where the angle is measured as 68.93 degrees relative to a horizontal plane on the ice-making tray minus the rotation of the ice tray in the drawing from the horizontal reference line at 6.63 degrees, where “about” is interpreted in light of 0018 of the Specification as, when used in the context of an angle or direction, within ten degrees greater or less than the stated angle or direction].
Regarding Claim 4, Dirnberger, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 2 and further teaches wherein the extension angle is about 60 degrees [refer to the rejection of claim 3 above, where “about” is interpreted in light of 0018 of the Specification as, when used in the context of an angle or direction, within ten degrees greater or less than the stated angle or direction].
Regarding Claim 5, Dirnberger, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and further teaches wherein the splash shield [side wall arrangement 46 a, Figure 3] is positioned around an entire perimeter of the ice tray [where the side wall arrangement 46 a comprises two long-side side-wall sections 48a and two short-side side wall sections 50a to form a protecting wall all around the periphery of the tray; 0033].
Regarding Claim 9, Dirnberger, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and further teaches wherein the ice tray is formed from polypropylene [where the ice-making tray first tray region may be formed of polypropylene; 0014] and the splash shield is formed from a silicone rubber [where the wall section of the side wall arrangement may comprise a silicone material 0014].
Regarding Claim 10, Dirnberger, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and does not teach where the splash shield is over molded onto the ice tray.
However, Boarman teaches an ice maker for making substantially clear ice pieces [0002] where the splash shield [containment wall 82, Figure 1] is over molded onto the ice tray [where the containment wall 82 is molded over upstanding edges of the ice forming plate 76; 0065] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique, over molding, to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., securing the splash shield to prevent spillage of water along the periphery of the tray.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to have where the splash shield is over molded onto the ice tray in view of the teachings of Boarman where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., securing the splash shield to prevent spillage of water along the periphery of the tray.
Regarding Claim 11, Dirnberger, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and further teaches where the ice tray [the ice-making tray 12; 0029] is twistable to facilitate harvest of ice [where the drive unit 24 twists the ice-making tray and the ice pieces produced therein break away from the ice-making tray; 0029] from within the plurality of mold cavities [ice piece production cavities 36a, Figure 2; 0032].
Claim 11 recites functional limitations drawn toward the intended use or manner of operating the claimed apparatus. The functional limitations are: “twistable.” When the cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus, it will be held that the prior art apparatus is capable of performing all of the claimed functional limitations of the claimed apparatus. The courts have held that: (1) "apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990), and (2) a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). MPEP § 2114.
Regarding Claim 13, Dimberger teaches an ice making assembly [ice maker 10, Figure 1] mounted to a door of a refrigerator appliance [where ice making tray 12 and at least some of the further components of the ice maker are fitted into a door of a refrigerator or freezer; 0031],
the ice making assembly [ice-maker 10, Figure 1] comprising:
an icemaker frame mounted to the door [where the ice maker 10 is fitted into a door; 0031];
an ice tray [ice-making tray 12, Figure 1] rotatably mounted to the icemaker frame [via axis of rotation 26, reduction gear 28 and drive unit 24, Figure 1] and defining a plurality of mold cavities [ice piece production cavities 36 a, Figure 2] for receiving water [from water supply device 14, Figure 1] that is formed into ice [where water in the ice-making tray 12 forms ice; 0031];
a drive motor [electric motor drive unit 24, Figure 1; 0029] operably coupled to the ice tray to rotate the ice tray [via reduction gear unit 28 along axis of rotation 26, Figure 1; 0029] and harvest the ice formed within the plurality of mold cavities [where the ice-making tray 12 must be rotatable in order that a batch of ice pieces can be ejected from the ice-making tray 12 when production is complete; 0029]; and
a splash shield [sidewall arrangement 46, Figure 3] extending from a top edge of the ice tray to prevent splashing from the plurality of mold cavities [where the ice-making tray 12 a comprises a top tray part 44a which forms a side wall arrangement 46a which extends upwards starting from the upper cavity edge and runs along the rectangular tray periphery; 0033] wherein the splash shield is straight or linear [where the splash shield extends linearly along edge of the rectangular tray, along the direction of axis of rotation 26a, 0033, as seen in Figure 2].
Dimberger further does not explicitly teach an icemaker frame structure mounted to the door.
However, Boarman teaches an ice maker for making substantially clear ice pieces [0002] where the icemaker frame [stationary support members 72 of ice maker 52, Figure 4] is mounted to the door [door 56, Figure 2] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e., securing the ice maker assembly to the door.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Dirnberger to have where the frame structure is mounted to the door in view of the teachings of Boarman where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results, i.e, securing the ice maker assembly to the door.
Regarding Claim 14, Dirnberger, as modified, and further teaches the invention of claim 13 and further teaches wherein the splash shield extends upward toward a center of the ice tray at an extension angle measured relative to a horizontal plane [refer to the rejection of claim 2 above].
Regarding Claim 15, Dirnberger, as modified, and further teaches the invention of claim 13 and further teaches wherein the splash shield is positioned around an entire perimeter of the ice tray [Refer to the rejection of claim 5 above].
Regarding Claim 19, Dirnberger, as modified teaches the invention of
claim 13 and further teaches where the ice tray is formed from polypropylene and
the splash shield is formed from a silicone rubber [refer to the rejection of claim 9 above]
Regarding Claim 20, Dirnberger, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 13 and does not teach the splash shield is over molded onto the ice tray [however, refer to the rejection of claim 10 in view of Boarman above].
PNG
media_image1.png
810
1046
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 6-8 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dirnberger et al. (US20170176080A1) in view of Boarman et al. (US20140165605A1) as applied to claim 1 and claim 13 above, and further in view of Shapiro et al. (US6357720B1).
Regarding Claim 6, Dirnberger, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and does not teach an insulation layer that covers at least a portion of a bottom surface of the ice tray.
However, Shapiro teaches an automatic ice maker [18, Figure 2; col. 2, liens 10-20] including an insulation layer [a thermally insulating jacket, Figure 3; col. 3, lines 12-18] that covers at least a portion of a bottom surface of the ice tray [where the jacket 38 covers the cell bottoms 28b, Figure 3; col. 3, lines 12-18.] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., controlling the direction of freezing for clearer ice [Shapiro, col. 4, lines 22-31]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to have an insulation layer that covers at least a portion of a bottom surface of the ice tray in view of the teachings of Shapiro where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., controlling the direction of freezing for clearer ice [Shapiro, col. 4, lines 22-31]
Regarding Claim 7, Dirnberger, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 6 and further does not teach the splash shield and the insulation layer are formed as a single, integral piece.
However, Shapiro teaches an automatic ice maker [18, Figure 2; col. 2, liens 10-20] including an insulation layer [a thermally insulating jacket, Figure 3; col. 3, lines 12-18] that covers the opposite external sides of the ice tray [col. 3, lines 12-18] where to have the insulation layer and splash shield formed as a single, integral piece would be a matter of obvious engineering choice; where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e., controlling the freezing direction of the water [Shapiro, col. 4, lines 22-31] and preventing water from splashing [Dirnberger; 0006] with fewer pieces.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to have the insulation layer and splash shield formed as a single, integral pieces in view of the teachings of Shapiro where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e., controlling the freezing direction of the water [Shapiro, col. 4, lines 22-31] and preventing water from splashing [Dirnberger; 0006] with fewer pieces.
Regarding Claim 8, Dirnberger, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 6 and does not teach wherein the insulation layer fully surrounds an entirety of a bottom surface of ice tray.
However, Shapiro teaches an automatic ice maker [18, Figure 2; col. 2, liens 10-20] including an insulation layer [a thermally insulating jacket, Figure 3; col. 3, lines 12-18] that fully surrounds an entirety of a bottom surface of ice tray [where the jacket 38 covers the cell bottoms 28b, Figure 3; col. 3, lines 12-18.] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., controlling the direction of freezing for clearer ice [Shapiro, col. 4, lines 22-31]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to have an insulation layer that fully surrounds an entirety of a bottom surface of ice tray in view of the teachings of Shapiro where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., controlling the direction of freezing for clearer ice [Shapiro, col. 4, lines 22-31]
Regarding Claim 16, Dirnberger, as modified, and further teaches the invention of claim 13 and does not teach an insulation layer that covers at least a portion of a bottom surface of the ice tray [however, refer to the rejection of claim 6 in view of Shapiro above]
Regarding Claim 17, Dirnberger, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 16 and does not teach wherein the splash shield and the insulation layer are formed as a single, integral piece [Refer to the rejection of claim 7 in view of Shapiro above]
Regarding Claim 18, Dirnberger, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 16 and further teaches where the insulation layer fully surrounds an entirety of a bottom surface of ice tray [however, refer to the rejection of claim 8 in view of Shapiro above]
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dirnberger et al. (US20170176080A1) in view of Boarman et al. (US20140165605A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Anderson et al. (US20080115521A1).
Regarding Claim 12, Dirnberger, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and further teaches where the chilled chamber is a freezer chamber [where the ice maker 10 is fitted into a door of a refrigerator or freezer; 0031] but does not teach the refrigerator appliance is a side-by-side refrigerator appliance.
However, Anderson teaches a freezer compartment with an automatic ice maker [0002] where the refrigerator appliance [refrigerator 10, Figure 1] is a side-by-side refrigerator appliance [where the freezer door 14 is on the left side of the refrigerator 10, Figure 1] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e., conserving interior space in the freezer [Anderson; 0004].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to have where the refrigerator appliance is a side-by-side refrigerator appliance in view of the teachings of Anderson where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e., conserving interior space in the freezer [Anderson; 0004].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments on pages 5-6 of the remarks filed 5/7/2026 regarding claims 1 and 13 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 5 of the remarks that the cited references fail to teach the newly added limitation wherein the splash shield is straight or linear because Dirnberger teaches a curved sidewall. Applicant's arguments filed 5/7/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In particular, Examiner acknowledges Dimberger teaches the splash shield [side-wall arrangement 46a] where the splash shield curves from the edge of the ice-making tray, 12a, to extend over the ice-making tray in a direction, as best seen in Figure 4, but the splash shield also extends linearly in a direction along the axis of rotation 26a [where the splash shield comprises two long-side side wall sections 48a which extend along the axis of rotation 26a; 0033 and Figure 2]. Further, Boarman teaches where a splash shield is straight or linear, containment wall 82, where the containment wall linearly extends longitudinally along the sides of the ice tray, as seen in the top view of Figure 5, and upward from the edge walls 95 of the ice tray, as seen in the side view of Figure 6. Therefore, the recitation where the splash shield is straight or linear does not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. Accordingly, the rejections of record are considered proper and remain.
Applicant does not separately argue the rejection of claims 2-12 and 14-20 except for their dependence upon claim 1 and 13. Accordingly, the rejections of record are considered proper and remain.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Copeman (US2593106A) teaches an ice tray for use in refrigerators, col. 1, lines 1-4, wherein the splash shield, spill-guard portion 28, Figure 2, extends linearly from the edge of the ice-tray over the opening of the tray, col.2, lines 3-13, shown in the embodiment of Figure 2.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KEONA LAUREN BANKS whose telephone number is (571)270-0426. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30- 5:00 EST.
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 5712705054. 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.
/KEONA LAUREN BANKS/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/ELIZABETH J MARTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights