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 Status
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 16-20 are new. Claims 1, 3, 5-6, 8, and 13 have been amended.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 5 has a typographical error, “fist” should be --first--.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim is missing a period at the end of the claim. 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.
The term “easily separated” in claims 1, 16, and 19 is a relative term which render the claims indefinite. The term “easily separated” is not defined by the claims, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The term “large” in claim 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “large” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The term “long” in claim 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “long” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are rejected due to indefiniteness but would be allowable if the pending rejections and objection made above are overcome.
The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior art does not anticipate nor render obvious the combination set forth in the independent claims. The aforementioned references teach a refrigerator, a storage chamber, a cooler, a first tray, a second tray, a water supply part, temperature sensors, tray heaters, and a controller.
The closest prior art of record is Lee et al. (US 2014/0182325 A1), Kim et al. (US 2012/0138003 A1), Lim et al. (US 2010/0175398 A1), Sasaki et al. (US 2006/0137382 A1), An et al. (US 2018/0187941 A1), Kim (US 2008/0236187 A1), Loeb (4,059,970), and Archer (3,182,464).
However, the references relied upon fail to specifically teach the limitations of:
In Claim 1: the references fail to teach or make obvious the specific limitations regarding “…wherein the controller is configured to control the second tray assembly so that a supply of the water starts after the second tray assembly moves to a water supply position in the reverse direction when an ice separation is completed; wherein the second heater is turned on in at least a partial section in which the cooler is configured to supply the cold air to make transparent ice, wherein, when the ice making process is completed, a degree of attachment between the ice of the ice making cell and the first tray assembly is greater than a degree of attachment between the ice of the ice making cell and the second tray assembly, and wherein the controller is configured to control the first heater to be turned on before the second tray assembly moves to the ice separation position in the forward direction so that the ice is easily separated from the first tray assembly.”
In Claim 16: the references fail to teach or make obvious the specific limitations regarding “…a controller configured to control the first and second heaters, wherein the second heater is turned on in at least a partial section in which the cooler is configured to supply the cold air to make transparent ice, and wherein the controller is configured to control the first heater to be turned on before the second tray assembly moves to an ice separation position in the forward direction so that the ice is easily separated from the first tray assembly.”
In Claim 19: the references fail to teach or make obvious the specific limitations regarding “…a controller configured to control the first and second heaters, wherein the second heater is turned on in at least a partial section in which the cooler is configured to supply the cold air to make transparent ice, wherein the controller is configured to control the first heater to be turned on before the second tray assembly moves to an ice separation position in the forward direction so that the ice is easily separated from the first tray assembly, wherein the first tray assembly includes a first contact surface, the second tray assembly includes a second contact surface in contact with the first contact surface at an ice making position, wherein the first tray assembly and the second tray assembly are arranged in a first direction, and wherein a first distance between the first contact surface and the first heater in the first direction is less than a second distance between the second contact surface and the second heater in the first direction.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hara (4,910,974).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIRSTIN U OSWALD whose telephone number is (571)270-3557. The examiner can normally be reached 10 a.m. - 6 p.m. M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Len Tran can be reached at 571-272-1184. 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.
/KIRSTIN U OSWALD/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/ERIC S RUPPERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights