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
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
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 20, line 3: “an ice maker of claim 1” should read “the ice maker of claim 1”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 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, lines 17-18 recite, “wherein at least one of the first pusher or the second tray assembly moves to change a position of the first pusher relative to the second tray assembly” which renders indefinite the metes and bounds sought for protection of the claim. In the instant case, the claim recites both an apparatus and process in the same claim. Per MPEP 2173.05(p): “[a] single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.” The Examiner recommends claiming a controller capable of performing these control operations. For purposes of examination, these limitations will be interpreted as purely functional recitations of the claim.
Claim 2, lines 2-4 recite, “a liquid supply being started when the second tray assembly moves to the liquid supply position, and an ice making being started when the second tray assembly moves to the ice making position” which renders indefinite the metes and bounds sought for protection of the claim. In the instant case, the claim recites both an apparatus and process in the same claim. Per MPEP 2173.05(p): “[a] single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.” The Examiner recommends claiming a controller capable of performing these control operations. For purposes of examination, these limitations will be interpreted as purely functional recitations of the claim.
Claim 3, lines 2-5 recite, “the second tray assembly moves to the ice separation position after an ice making is completed, and a liquid supply being started when the second tray assembly moves to the liquid supply position” which renders indefinite the metes and bounds sought for protection of the claim. In the instant case, the claim recites both an apparatus and process in the same claim. Per MPEP 2173.05(p): “[a] single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.” The Examiner recommends claiming a controller capable of performing these control operations. For purposes of examination, these limitations will be interpreted as purely functional recitations of the claim.
Claim 4, lines 2-5 recite, “an ice making being started when the second tray assembly moves to the ice making position, and the second tray assembly moves to the ice separation position after the ice making is completed” which renders indefinite the metes and bounds sought for protection of the claim. In the instant case, the claim recites both an apparatus and process in the same claim. Per MPEP 2173.05(p): “[a] single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.” The Examiner recommends claiming a controller capable of performing these control operations. For purposes of examination, these limitations will be interpreted as purely functional recitations of the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the first tray supporter" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner recommends changing “the first tray supporter" in lines 1-2 of claim 5 to “a first tray supporter”.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the first tray cover" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner recommends changing “the first tray cover " in line 2 of claim 5 to “a first tray cover”.
Claim 9, lines 17-18 recite, “wherein at least one of the first pusher or the second tray assembly moves to change a position of the first pusher relative to the second tray assembly” which renders indefinite the metes and bounds sought for protection of the claim. In the instant case, the claim recites both an apparatus and process in the same claim. Per MPEP 2173.05(p): “[a] single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.” The Examiner recommends claiming a controller capable of performing these control operations. For purposes of examination, these limitations will be interpreted as purely functional recitations of the claim.
Claim 11, lines 2-4 recite, “a liquid supply being started when the second tray assembly moves to the liquid supply position, and an ice making being started when the second tray assembly moves to the ice making position” which renders indefinite the metes and bounds sought for protection of the claim. In the instant case, the claim recites both an apparatus and process in the same claim. Per MPEP 2173.05(p): “[a] single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.” The Examiner recommends claiming a controller capable of performing these control operations. For purposes of examination, these limitations will be interpreted as purely functional recitations of the claim.
Claim 12, lines 2-5 recite, “the second tray assembly moves to the ice separation position after the ice making is completed, and a liquid supply being started when the second tray assembly moves to the liquid supply position” which renders indefinite the metes and bounds sought for protection of the claim. In the instant case, the claim recites both an apparatus and process in the same claim. Per MPEP 2173.05(p): “[a] single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.” The Examiner recommends claiming a controller capable of performing these control operations. For purposes of examination, these limitations will be interpreted as purely functional recitations of the claim.
Claim 13, lines 2-5 recite, “an ice making being started when the second tray assembly moves to the ice making position, and the second tray assembly moves to the ice separation position after the ice making is completed” which renders indefinite the metes and bounds sought for protection of the claim. In the instant case, the claim recites both an apparatus and process in the same claim. Per MPEP 2173.05(p): “[a] single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.” The Examiner recommends claiming a controller capable of performing these control operations. For purposes of examination, these limitations will be interpreted as purely functional recitations of the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the first tray supporter" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner recommends changing “the first tray supporter" in lines 1-2 of claim 14 to “a first tray supporter”.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the first tray cover" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner recommends changing “the first tray cover " in line 2 of claim 14 to “a first tray cover”.
Claims 2-5 and 20 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
Claims 6-7 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 5.
Claim 8 is also rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 7.
Claims 10-14 and 18-19 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 9.
Claims 15-16 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 14.
Claim 17 is also rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 16.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Son et al. (US 20130014535), hereinafter Son.
Regarding claim 1, an ice maker (Fig. 14, ice maker 200; Pg. 5, paragraph 87, Thus, other components except for the ejecting unit and a coupling relationship between the ejecting unit and the driving unit may be the same as those of the ice maker described above. Thus, the same components will be indicated by the same reference numerals, and their above detailed description will be referenced, rather than repeated. Also, reference numerals which are not shown may be referred to as the same reference numeral as those of the above ice maker) comprising:
a first tray assembly, the first tray assembly including a first tray and a first tray case (Fig. 4, upper tray 110, fixed part 111, insertion tray part 112, upper shell 115);
a second tray assembly, the second tray assembly including a second tray and a second tray case (Fig. 6, lower tray 120, recessed part 121, lower shell 122);
a cell in which liquid is phase-changed into ice, the first tray defining a first portion of the cell and the second tray defining a second portion of the cell (Pg. 3, paragraph 48, an insertion tray part 112 having an upper shell 115 that defines an upper half portion of a globular or spherical ice piece; Pg. 3, paragraph 56, A hemispherical lower shell 122 recessed in a hemispherical shape is defined in a lower end of the recessed part 121. A globular or spherical shell is defined based on the upper shell 115 becoming closely attached to an upper end of the lower shell 122. The lower shell 122 may be disposed symmetrical to the upper shell 115);
a driver including a motor (Fig. 14, driving unit 130, motor 131, driving shaft 132);
a first pusher including a first edge having a surface configured to press at least one of the ice, the first tray assembly, or the second tray assembly to separate the ice from at least one of the first tray assembly or the second tray assembly, a column extending from the first edge (See annotated Fig. 14 of Son below, ejector 253 includes connection member 253b and ejecting pins 253a which include first edge 253a-1 and surface 253a-2 and the ejecting pins 253a extending from the first edge 253a-1; Pg. 6, paragraph 93, A portion of the ejecting pin 253a passes through an air hole 116 defined in the upper shell 115 of the upper tray 110 to push an ice within the upper shell 115 downward. At least portion of the upper shell 115 may be formed of an elastic member. Alternatively, a lower end of the ejecting pin 253a may push the upper shell 115 from an upper side to separate an ice within the upper shell 115),
a link configured to connect the first pusher to the driver, the link including a first end coupled to the first pusher and a second end coupled to the driver (See annotated Fig. 14 of Son below, rod 252 includes first end 252a connected to ejector 253 and second end 252b coupled to the driving unit 130 via disk 251),
wherein the second tray assembly is configured to move relative to the first tray assembly between a first position and a second position (Fig. 14-16 depict the lower tray 120 in different positions relative to the upper tray 110; Pg. 5, paragraph 93, After water for making ice is supplied into the lower tray 120, the lower tray 120 is moved upward. As a result, the lower tray 120 is closely attached to the upper tray 110 as shown in FIG.14. In this state, cool air is supplied to make ice; Pg. 6, paragraph 98, In the state of FIG. 16 in which the lower tray 120 is completely rotated, the lower end of the ejecting pin 253a passes through the upper shell 115 to push an ice piece within the upper shell 115 downward. Thus, the made ice pieces may be forcibly separated from the upper tray 110 and transferred downward),
wherein at least one of the first pusher or the second tray assembly moves to change a position of the first pusher relative to the second tray assembly (Pg. 5, paragraph 91, The ejector253 is disposed above the upper tray 110 and shaft-coupled to an upper end of the rod 252. Thus, the ejector 253 may be vertically moved according to an operation of the driving unit 130; Pg. 5, paragraph 93, After water for making ice is supplied into the lower tray 120, the lower tray 120 is moved upward. As a result, the lower tray 120 is closely attached to the upper tray 110 as shown in FIG.14. In this state, cool air is supplied to make ice; Pg. 6, paragraph 98, In the state of FIG. 16 in which the lower tray 120 is completely rotated, the lower end of the ejecting pin 253a passes through the upper shell 115 to push an ice piece within the upper shell 115 downward. Thus, the made ice pieces may be forcibly separated from the upper tray 110 and transferred downward), and
wherein a portion of the link is disposed at different positions in a horizontal direction, respectively, when the second tray assembly is at the first position and at the second position (Fig. 14 depicts the portion of rod 252 that is connected to the disk 251 to be in a different position horizontally when the ice maker is in the ice making position than in Fig. 16 where the ice maker is in the ice separation position; Pg. 5, paragraph 90, In detail, the disk 252 has a circular plate shape and is coupled to a driving shaft 132 rotated by a motor 131. The rod 252 converts a rotation movement of the disk 251 into a linear movement of the ejector 253. Also, the rod 252 has a predetermined length. Both ends of the rod 252 are shaft coupled to the disk 251 and the ejector 253, respectively. Here, a side of the rod 252 may be disposed on a position eccentrical to a rotation center of the disk 251).
PNG
media_image1.png
548
602
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 14 of Son
Regarding claim 2, Son discloses the ice maker of claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the first position is a liquid supply position and the second position is an ice making position, a liquid supply being started when the second tray assembly moves to the liquid supply position, and an ice making being started when the second tray assembly moves to the ice making position (Fig. 14; Pg. 5, paragraph 93, After water for making ice is supplied into the lower tray 120, the lower tray 120 is moved upward. As a result, the lower tray 120 is closely attached to the upper tray 110 as shown in FIG.14. In this state, cool air is supplied to make ice; Further, the teachings of Son at least imply the lower tray 120 to be in a first position when the water is supplied before being moved upward into a second position for ice making since it has been held in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom (MPEP 2144.01); Moreover, in addition to structural limitations, claim 2 recites functional limitations drawn toward the intended use or manner of operating the claimed apparatus. The functional limitations are: “a liquid supply being started when the second tray assembly moves to the liquid supply position, and an ice making being started when the second tray assembly moves to the ice making position.” 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; As best understood, see 112(b) rejections above).
Regarding claim 3, Son discloses the ice maker of claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the first position is an ice separation position and the second position is a liquid supply position, the second tray assembly moves to the ice separation position after an ice making is completed, and a liquid supply being started when the second tray assembly moves to the liquid supply position (Fig. 16 depicts an ice separation position; Pg. 5, paragraph 93, After water for making ice is supplied into the lower tray 120, the lower tray 120 is moved upward. As a result, the lower tray 120 is closely attached to the upper tray 110 as shown in FIG.14. In this state, cool air is supplied to make ice; Pg. 6, paragraph 98, In the state of FIG. 16 in which the lower tray 120 is completely rotated, the lower end of the ejecting pin 253a passes through the upper shell 115 to push an ice piece within the upper shell 115 downward. Thus, the made ice pieces may be forcibly separated from the upper tray 110 and transferred downward; Further, the teachings of Son at least imply the lower tray 120 to be in a second position when the water is supplied before being moved upward into the ice making position depicted in Fig. 14 since it has been held in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom (MPEP 2144.01); Moreover, in addition to structural limitations, claim 3 recites functional limitations drawn toward the intended use or manner of operating the claimed apparatus. The functional limitations are: “the second tray assembly moves to the ice separation position after an ice making is completed, and a liquid supply being started when the second tray assembly moves to the liquid supply position.” 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; As best understood, see 112(b) rejections above).
Regarding claim 4, Son discloses the ice maker of claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the first position is an ice making position and the second position is an ice separation position, an ice making being started when the second tray assembly moves to the ice making position, and the second tray assembly moves to the ice separation position after the ice making is completed (Fig. 14 depicts an ice making position, Fig. 16 depicts an ice separation position; Pg. 5, paragraph 93, After water for making ice is supplied into the lower tray 120, the lower tray 120 is moved upward. As a result, the lower tray 120 is closely attached to the upper tray 110 as shown in FIG.14. In this state, cool air is supplied to make ice; Pg. 6, paragraph 98, In the state of FIG. 16 in which the lower tray 120 is completely rotated, the lower end of the ejecting pin 253a passes through the upper shell 115 to push an ice piece within the upper shell 115 downward. Thus, the made ice pieces may be forcibly separated from the upper tray 110 and transferred downward; Moreover, in addition to structural limitations, claim 4 recites functional limitations drawn toward the intended use or manner of operating the claimed apparatus. The functional limitations are: “an ice making being started when the second tray assembly moves to the ice making position, and the second tray assembly moves to the ice separation position after the ice making is completed.” 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; As best understood, see 112(b) rejections above).
Regarding claim 5, Son discloses the ice maker of claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the first tray case includes the first tray supporter and the first tray cover (Fig. 4, fixed part 111, insertion tray part 112).
Regarding claim 6, Son discloses the ice maker of claim 5 (see the rejection of claim 5 above), wherein the first tray supporter and the first tray cover are integrally provided, or coupled to each other after being manufactured in separate configurations (Pg. 3, paragraph 48, In more detail, the upper tray 110 may be formed of a metal material having superior thermal conductivity, such as aluminum. Also, the upper tray 110 may include a fixed part 111 fixed to a side of the inside of the freezing compartment 4 and an insertion tray part 112 having an upper shell 115 that defines an upper half portion of a globular or spherical ice piece; The limitations of claim 6 are not patentably distinct limitations of the claims as it has been held “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). MPEP § 2113-I; Further, the teachings of forming the upper tray 110, which includes fixed part 111 and insertion tray 112, from aluminum at least imply the components are integral to the upper tray 110 since it has been held in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom (MPEP 2144.01)).
Regarding claim 20, Son discloses a refrigerator (Fig. 1, refrigerator 1) comprising:
a storage chamber (Fig. 1, cabinet 2, refrigerating compartment 3, freezing compartment 4; Pg. 2, paragraph 42, In detail, the cabinet 2 has a storage space vertically partitioned by a barrier. That is, a refrigerating compartment 3 is defined at an upper side, and a freezing compartment 4 is defined at a lower side. Receiving members, such as a drawer, a shelf, a basket, and the like, may be provided within the refrigerating compartment 3 and the freezing compartment 4); and
an ice maker of claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above; Fig. 14, ice maker 200; Pg. 3, paragraph 45, The ice maker 100 is provided in the freezing compartment 4; Pg. 5, paragraph 87, Thus, other components except for the ejecting unit and a coupling relationship between the ejecting unit and the driving unit may be the same as those of the ice maker described above. Thus, the same components will be indicated by the same reference numerals, and their above detailed description will be referenced, rather than repeated. Also, reference numerals which are not shown may be referred to as the same reference numeral as those of the above ice maker).
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.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son et al. (US 20130014535), hereinafter Son in view of Kocaturk et al. (WO 2018041524), hereinafter Kocaturk.
Regarding claim 7, Son discloses the ice maker of claim 5 (see the rejection of claim 5 above).
However, Son does not disclose further comprising a bracket defining at least a portion of a space that accommodates the first tray assembly and the second tray assembly.
Kocaturk teaches further comprising a bracket defining at least a portion of a space that accommodates an ice tray of an ice maker (Fig. 2, ice making unit 8, ice tray 5, body 6, casing 7; Pg. 4, paragraph 19-20, ice making unit (8) that is disposed in the freezing compartment (3) and that has at least one ice tray (5) with more than one cell (4) wherein water is put to form ice pieces, a body (6) wherein the ice tray (5) is placed and a casing (7) wherein the body (6) is disposed… The refrigerator (1) of the present invention comprises a body (6) that almost completely covers the ice tray (5)).
Son fails to teach a bracket defining at least a portion of a space that accommodates the first tray assembly and the second tray assembly, however Kocaturk teaches that it is a known method in the art of ice makers to include a bracket defining at least a portion of a space that accommodates an ice tray of an ice maker. This is strong evidence that modifying Son as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. providing the ice maker as a packaged unit). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Son by Kocaturk and arrive at the claimed invention since all claimed elements were known in the art and one having ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of providing the ice maker as a packaged unit.
Regarding claim 8, Son as modified discloses the ice maker of claim 7 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 5 above), wherein the first tray cover is manufactured as a separate part from the bracket and then is coupled to the bracket, or integrally farmed with the bracket (The limitations of claim 8 are not patentably distinct limitations of the claims as it has been held “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). MPEP § 2113-I; Further, the teachings of forming the upper tray 110, which includes fixed part 111 and insertion tray 112, from aluminum at least imply the components are integral to the upper tray 110 since it has been held in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom (MPEP 2144.01)).
Claims 9-15 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son et al. (US 20130014535), hereinafter Son in view of Lee et al. (US 20140182325), hereinafter Lee.
Regarding claim 9, an ice maker (Fig. 14, ice maker 200; Pg. 5, paragraph 87, Thus, other components except for the ejecting unit and a coupling relationship between the ejecting unit and the driving unit may be the same as those of the ice maker described above. Thus, the same components will be indicated by the same reference numerals, and their above detailed description will be referenced, rather than repeated. Also, reference numerals which are not shown may be referred to as the same reference numeral as those of the above ice maker) comprising:
a first tray assembly, the first tray assembly including a first tray and a first tray case (Fig. 4, upper tray 110, fixed part 111, insertion tray part 112, upper shell 115);
a second tray assembly, the second tray assembly including a second tray and a second tray case (Fig. 6, lower tray 120, recessed part 121, lower shell 122);
a cell in which liquid is phase-changed into ice, the first tray defining a first portion of the cell and the second tray defining a second portion of the cell (Pg. 3, paragraph 48, an insertion tray part 112 having an upper shell 115 that defines an upper half portion of a globular or spherical ice piece; Pg. 3, paragraph 56, A hemispherical lower shell 122 recessed in a hemispherical shape is defined in a lower end of the recessed part 121. A globular or spherical shell is defined based on the upper shell 115 becoming closely attached to an upper end of the lower shell 122. The lower shell 122 may be disposed symmetrical to the upper shell 115);
a driver including a motor (Fig. 14, driving unit 130, motor 131, driving shaft 132);
a first pusher including a first edge having a surface configured to press at least one of the ice, the first tray assembly, or the second tray assembly to separate the ice from at least one of the first tray assembly or the second tray assembly, a column extending from the first edge (See annotated Fig. 14 of Son below, ejector 253 includes connection member 253b and ejecting pins 253a which include first edge 253a-1 and surface 253a-2 and the ejecting pins 253a extending from the first edge 253a-1; Pg. 6, paragraph 93, A portion of the ejecting pin 253a passes through an air hole 116 defined in the upper shell 115 of the upper tray 110 to push an ice within the upper shell 115 downward. At least portion of the upper shell 115 may be formed of an elastic member. Alternatively, a lower end of the ejecting pin 253a may push the upper shell 115 from an upper side to separate an ice within the upper shell 115),
a link configured to connect the first pusher to the driver, the link including a first end coupled to the first pusher and a second end coupled to the driver (See annotated Fig. 14 of Son below, rod 252 includes first end 252a connected to ejector 253 and second end 252b coupled to the driving unit 130 via disk 251),
wherein the second tray assembly is configured to move relative to the first tray assembly between a first position and a second position (Fig. 14-16 depict the lower tray 120 in different positions relative to the upper tray 110; Pg. 5, paragraph 93, After water for making ice is supplied into the lower tray 120, the lower tray 120 is moved upward. As a result, the lower tray 120 is closely attached to the upper tray 110 as shown in FIG.14. In this state, cool air is supplied to make ice; Pg. 6, paragraph 98, In the state of FIG. 16 in which the lower tray 120 is completely rotated, the lower end of the ejecting pin 253a passes through the upper shell 115 to push an ice piece within the upper shell 115 downward. Thus, the made ice pieces may be forcibly separated from the upper tray 110 and transferred downward),
wherein at least one of the first pusher or the second tray assembly moves to change a position of the first pusher relative to the second tray assembly (Pg. 5, paragraph 91, The ejector253 is disposed above the upper tray 110 and shaft-coupled to an upper end of the rod 252. Thus, the ejector 253 may be vertically moved according to an operation of the driving unit 130; Pg. 5, paragraph 93, After water for making ice is supplied into the lower tray 120, the lower tray 120 is moved upward. As a result, the lower tray 120 is closely attached to the upper tray 110 as shown in FIG.14. In this state, cool air is supplied to make ice; Pg. 6, paragraph 98, In the state of FIG. 16 in which the lower tray 120 is completely rotated, the lower end of the ejecting pin 253a passes through the upper shell 115 to push an ice piece within the upper shell 115 downward. Thus, the made ice pieces may be forcibly separated from the upper tray 110 and transferred downward); and
wherein a portion of the link is positioned at a third position when the second tray assembly is at the first position, and the portion of the link is positioned at a fourth position when the second tray assembly is at the second position (Fig. 14 depicts the portion of rod 252 that is connected to the disk 251 to be in a different position horizontally when the ice maker is in the ice making position than in Fig. 16 where the ice maker is in the ice separation position; Pg. 5, paragraph 90, In detail, the disk 252 has a circular plate shape and is coupled to a driving shaft 132 rotated by a motor 131. The rod 252 converts a rotation movement of the disk 251 into a linear movement of the ejector 253. Also, the rod 252 has a predetermined length. Both ends of the rod 252 are shaft coupled to the disk 251 and the ejector 253, respectively. Here, a side of the rod 252 may be disposed on a position eccentrical to a rotation center of the disk 251);
wherein the third position is different from the fourth position (Fig. 14 of Son depicts the portion of rod 252 that is connected to the disk 251 to be in a different position horizontally when the ice maker is in the ice making position than in Fig. 16 where the ice maker is in the ice separation position).
However, Son does not disclose wherein the ice maker further comprises a guide including a housing configured to provide a path for a movement of the link, the housing including a first wall and a second wall extending in a different direction from the first wall.
Lee teaches wherein the ice maker further comprises a guide including a housing configured to provide a path for a movement of the link, the housing including a first wall and a second wall extending in a different direction from the first wall (See annotated Fig. 3 of lee below, link guide 111 includes guide hole 112 which includes a first wall 112a which extends in a horizontal direction and a second wall 112b which extends in a vertical direction. Fig. 3 further depicts link 22, upper ejecting pin assembly 19, pin body 191, upper ejecting pins 192; Pg. 3, paragraph 39, The upper ejecting pin assembly 19 includes a plurality of upper ejecting pins 192 and a pin body 191 to which the upper ejecting pins 192 are attached. A guide protrusion 193 protrudes from each of both ends of the pin body 191, and a link connecting end 194 protrudes from the guide protrusion 193. The guide protrusion 193 is inserted in the guide hole 112 of the link guide 111 to ascend or descend along the guide hole 112. The link 22 has one end connected to the link connecting end 194. The plurality of upper ejecting pins 192 are disposed on positions to pass through the air holes 115 disposed in the top surfaces of the upper cells 113, respectively. Thus, when the plurality of upper ejecting pins 192 descends, the upper ejecting pins 192 pass through the air holes 115 to push ice pieces attached to the upper cells 113 out).
Son fails to teach wherein the ice maker further comprises a guide including a housing configured to provide a path for a movement of the link, the housing including a first wall and a second wall extending in a different direction from the first wall, however Lee teaches that it is a known method in the art of ice makers to include wherein the ice maker further comprises a guide including a housing configured to provide a path for a movement of the link, the housing including a first wall and a second wall extending in a different direction from the first wall. This is strong evidence that modifying Son as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. ensuring the link does not divert from the path to improve overall system efficiencies). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Son by Lee and arrive at the claimed invention since all claimed elements were known in the art and one having ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of ensuring the link does not divert from the path to improve overall system efficiencies. Further, the modification as described herein results in the third and fourth positions being within the housing.
PNG
media_image1.png
548
602
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 14 of Son
PNG
media_image2.png
512
558
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 3 of Lee
Regarding claim 10, Son as modified discloses the ice maker of claim 9 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 9 above), wherein the housing is provided as a shape of a slot (Lee, guide hole 112 is depicted in the shape of a slot and would remain in the shape of a slot aside from any directional changes that may be required within the slot to accommodate the rotational movement the rod 252 of Son receives from disk 251). Further, the limitations of claim 10 are the result of the modification of references used in the rejection of claim 9 above.
Regarding claim 11, Son as modified discloses the ice maker of claim 9 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 9 above), wherein the first position is a liquid supply position and the second position is an ice making position, a liquid supply being started when the second tray assembly moves to the liquid supply position, and an ice making being started when the second tray assembly moves to the ice making position (Son, Fig. 14; Pg. 5, paragraph 93, After water for making ice is supplied into the lower tray 120, the lower tray 120 is moved upward. As a result, the lower tray 120 is closely attached to the upper tray 110 as shown in FIG.14. In this state, cool air is supplied to make ice; Further, the teachings of Son at least imply the lower tray 120 to be in a first position when the water is supplied before being moved upward into a second position for ice making since it has been held in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom (MPEP 2144.01); Moreover, in addition to structural limitations, claim 11 recites functional limitations drawn toward the intended use or manner of operating the claimed apparatus. The functional limitations are: “a liquid supply being started when the second tray assembly moves to the liquid supply position, and an ice making being started when the second tray assembly moves to the ice making position.” 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; As best understood, see 112(b) rejections above).
Regarding claim 12, Son as modified discloses the ice maker of claim 9 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 9 above), wherein the first position is an ice separation position and the second position is a liquid supply position, the second tray assembly moves to the ice separation position after an ice making is completed, and a liquid supply being started when the second tray assembly moves to the liquid supply position (Son, Fig. 16 depicts an ice separation position; Pg. 5, paragraph 93, After water for making ice is supplied into the lower tray 120, the lower tray 120 is moved upward. As a result, the lower tray 120 is closely attached to the upper tray 110 as shown in FIG.14. In this state, cool air is supplied to make ice; Pg. 6, paragraph 98, In the state of FIG. 16 in which the lower tray 120 is completely rotated, the lower end of the ejecting pin 253a passes through the upper shell 115 to push an ice piece within the upper shell 115 downward. Thus, the made ice pieces may be forcibly separated from the upper tray 110 and transferred downward; Further, the teachings of Son at least imply the lower tray 120 to be in a second position when the water is supplied before being moved upward into the ice making position depicted in Fig. 14 since it has been held in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom (MPEP 2144.01); Moreover, in addition to structural limitations, claim 12 recites functional limitations drawn toward the intended use or manner of operating the claimed apparatus. The functional limitations are: “the second tray assembly moves to the ice separation position after an ice making is completed, and a liquid supply being started when the second tray assembly moves to the liquid supply position.” 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; As best understood, see 112(b) rejections above).
Regarding claim 13, Son as modified discloses the ice maker of claim 9 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 9 above), wherein the first position is an ice making position and the second position is an ice separation position, an ice making being started when the second tray assembly moves to the ice making position, and the second tray assembly moves to the ice separation position after the ice making is completed (Son, Fig. 14 depicts an ice making position, Fig. 16 depicts an ice separation position; Pg. 5, paragraph 93, After water for making ice is supplied into the lower tray 120, the lower tray 120 is moved upward. As a result, the lower tray 120 is closely attached to the upper tray 110 as shown in FIG.14. In this state, cool air is supplied to make ice; Pg. 6, paragraph 98, In the state of FIG. 16 in which the lower tray 120 is completely rotated, the lower end of the ejecting pin 253a passes through the upper shell 115 to push an ice piece within the upper shell 115 downward. Thus, the made ice pieces may be forcibly separated from the upper tray 110 and transferred downward; Moreover, in addition to structural limitations, claim 13 recites functional limitations drawn toward the intended use or manner of operating the claimed apparatus. The functional limitations are: “an ice making being started when the second tray assembly moves to the ice making position, and the second tray assembly moves to the ice separation position after the ice making is completed.” 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; As best understood, see 112(b) rejections above).
Regarding claim 14, Son as modified discloses the ice maker of claim 9 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 9 above), wherein the first tray case includes the first tray supporter and the first tray cover (Son, Fig. 4, fixed part 111, insertion tray part 112).
Regarding claim 15, Son as modified discloses the ice maker of claim 14 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 14 above), wherein the first tray supporter and the first tray cover are integrally provided, or coupled to each other after being manufactured in separate configurations (Son, Pg. 3, paragraph 48, In more detail, the upper tray 110 may be formed of a metal material having superior thermal conductivity, such as aluminum. Also, the upper tray 110 may include a fixed part 111 fixed to a side of the inside of the freezing compartment 4 and an insertion tray part 112 having an upper shell 115 that defines an upper half portion of a globular or spherical ice piece; The limitations of claim 6 are not patentably distinct limitations of the claims as it has been held “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). MPEP § 2113-I; Further, the teachings of forming the upper tray 110, which includes fixed part 111 and insertion tray 112, from aluminum at least imply the components are integral to the upper tray 110 since it has been held in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom (MPEP 2144.01)).
Regarding claim 18, Son as modified discloses the ice maker of claim 9 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 9 above), wherein the third position in the housing is different from the fourth position in a horizontal direction (Fig. 14 of Son depicts the portion of rod 252 that is connected to the disk 251 to be in a different position horizontally when the ice maker is in the ice making position than in Fig. 16 where the ice maker is in the ice separation position and would remain in this configuration when modified to include the guide and the housing of Lee as described herein). Further, the limitations of claim 18 are the result of the modification of references used in the rejection of claim 9 above.
Regarding claim 19, Son as modified discloses the ice maker of claim 9 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 9 above), wherein the guide is formed as a separate component to the first tray (The limitations of claim 19 are not patentably distinct limitations of the claims as it has been held “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). MPEP § 2113-I; Further, the teachings of forming the upper tray 110, which includes fixed part 111 and insertion tray 112, from aluminum at least imply the components are integral to the upper tray 110 since it has been held in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom (MPEP 2144.01)).
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son as modified by Lee as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Kocaturk et al. (WO 2018041524), hereinafter Kocaturk.
Regarding claim 16, Son as modified discloses the ice maker of claim 14 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 14 above).
However, Son as modified does not disclose further comprising a bracket defining at least a portion of a space that accommodates the first tray assembly and the second tray assembly.
Kocaturk teaches further comprising a bracket defining at least a portion of a space that accommodates an ice tray of an ice maker (Fig. 2, ice making unit 8, ice tray 5, body 6, casing 7; Pg. 4, paragraph 19-20, ice making unit (8) that is disposed in the freezing compartment (3) and that has at least one ice tray (5) with more than one cell (4) wherein water is put to form ice pieces, a body (6) wherein the ice tray (5) is placed and a casing (7) wherein the body (6) is disposed… The refrigerator (1) of the present invention comprises a body (6) that almost completely covers the ice tray (5)).
Son as modified fails to teach a bracket defining at least a portion of a space that accommodates the first tray assembly and the second tray assembly, however Kocaturk teaches that it is a known method in the art of ice makers to include a bracket defining at least a portion of a space that accommodates an ice tray of an ice maker. This is strong evidence that modifying Son as modified as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. providing the ice maker as a packaged unit). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Son as modified by Kocaturk and arrive at the claimed invention since all claimed elements were known in the art and one having ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of providing the ice maker as a packaged unit.
Regarding claim 17, Son as modified discloses the ice maker of claim 16 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 16 above), wherein the first tray cover is manufactured as a separate part from the bracket and then is coupled to the bracket, or integrally farmed with the bracket (The limitations of claim 17 are not patentably distinct limitations of the claims as it has been held “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). MPEP § 2113-I; Further, the teachings of forming the upper tray 110, which includes fixed part 111 and insertion tray 112, from aluminum at least imply the components are integral to the upper tray 110 since it has been held in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom (MPEP 2144.01)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Culley et al. (US 20140167321) discloses a similar spherical transparent ice maker with ejector pins.
Culley (US 20140165620) discloses a similar spherical transparent ice maker with ejector pins.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVON T MOORE whose telephone number is 571-272-6555. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:30-5.
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.
/DEVON MOORE/Examiner, Art Unit 3763 May 28th, 2026
Prosecution Insights