CTNF 18/908,412 CTNF 90183 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 07-34-01 Claims 1-20 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. 07-34-05 AIA Claim 1 recites the limitation " wherein the at least one tray assembly " in line 8 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. By virtue of dependency, claims 2-20 are also rejected. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 07-20-aia AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-10, 12-13, 15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2014/0182325 A1), hereafter referred to as “Lee,” in view of Kim (US 2008/0236187 A1) and Archer (3,048,986) . Regarding Claim 1: Lee teaches an ice maker (10) comprising: a first tray assembly (11) configured to define a portion of an ice making cell (113 and 141) having a space in which water (via 16) is phase-changed into ice by cold air (paragraph [0003]); a second tray assembly (12) configured to define another portion of the ice making cell (141); and a heater (18) disposed adjacent to at least one tray assembly of the first tray assembly (11) or the second tray assembly, wherein the at least one tray assembly (11 and 12) comprises a tray (11 is a tray and 12 is a tray) and a tray case (12 has a case 15) to support the tray (functional limitation), the tray (12) includes a first portion (141) defining at least a portion of the ice making cell (141) and made of a flexible material (paragraph [0032]), and the first portion (141) has different degree of heat transfer in a direction along an outer circumferential surface of the ice making cell to reduce transfer of heat (141 is plastic, paragraph [0032]), the heat being transferred from the heater (18) to one tray assembly (11) of the first (11) and second tray assemblies, to an ice making cell (113 and 141) defined by the other tray assembly (12) of first and second tray assemblies (11and 12 together have 113 and 141). Kim teaches a tray case (Figure 7, 700); wherein the tray case (700) includes a tray supporter (720) and a tray cover (740, 750). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a tray case; wherein the tray case includes a tray supporter and a tray cover to the structure of Lee as taught by Kim in order to advantageously provide a structure to protect and mount the tray and to keep it secure in operation (see Kim, paragraphs [0054]-[0057]). Archer teaches an ice maker and ice tray having components made of varying materials (40, metallic frame of ice tray 39; Column 3, lines 13-24, frame 23 is made of sheet metal, Column 2, lines 50-53; and 29 is rubber, Column 2, lines 60-65). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein the ice maker components are made of different materials to the structure of Lee modified supra as taught by Archer in order to advantageously provide different materials in the ice makers depending on their function (see Archer, Column 3, lines 13-24). Regarding Claim 2: Lee teaches wherein the degree of heat transfer indicates a degree of heat transfer from a high-temperature object (heater 18 to water/ice in cavities of 113, 141) to a low-temperature object (frozen ice cubes in 113, 141). Regarding Claim 3: Lee teaches wherein the degree of heat transfer is defined as a value determined by at least one of a shape including a thickness of an object or a material of the object (functional limitation of heat transfer through ice maker 10). Regarding Claim 4: Lee modified supra fails to teach wherein a high degree of the heat transfer of the object represents that thermal conductivity of the object is high, or the more the thickness in a path direction in which heat is transferred from a point A to a point B decreases, the more the degree of heat transfer from the point A to the point B decreases, or the greater the thickness in the path direction from which the heat from point A to point B is transferred, the more the degree of heat transfer from point A to point B. However, Lee modified supra teaches an ice tray having components made of varying materials (40, metallic frame of ice tray 39; Column 3, lines 13-24, frame 23 is made of sheet metal, Column 2, lines 50-53; and 29 is rubber, Column 2, lines 60-65 as taught by Archer). Thus, changes in thermal conductivity across thickness of material is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is an improved efficiency based upon different materials in the ice makers depending on their function (see Archer, Column 3, lines 13-24). Regarding Claim 5: Lee teaches wherein the tray includes a portion having greater degree of thermal conductivity than that of the tray case, or the tray (portion 12) includes a portion having lesser degree of deformation resistance (141) than the tray case (frame 15), or the tray includes a portion having greater degree of restoration than the tray case. Regarding Claim 6: Lee modified supra fails to teach wherein the tray case comprises a tray supporter and a tray cover. Kim teaches a tray case (700); wherein the tray case (700) comprises a tray supporter (720) and a tray cover (740, 750). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein the tray case comprises a tray supporter and a tray cover to the structure of Lee modified supra as taught by Kim in order to advantageously provide a structure to protect and mount the tray and to keep it secure in operation (see Kim, paragraphs [0054]-[0057]). Regarding Claim 7: Lee modified supra further teaches wherein the tray supporter (720 of Kim) and the tray cover (740, 750 of Kim) are integrally provided (see Figure 4 of Kim), or are coupled to each other after being manufactured in separate configurations (see Figure 4 of Kim). Regarding Claim 8: Lee modified supra fails to teach wherein the tray cover is manufactured as a separate part from a bracket and then is coupled to the bracket or integrally formed with the bracket. Kim teaches a tray cover (740, 750) is manufactured as a separate part from a bracket (710) and then is coupled to the bracket or integrally formed with the bracket (see Figure 7, 700). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein the tray cover is manufactured as a separate part from a bracket and then is coupled to the bracket or integrally formed with the bracket to the structure of Lee modified supra as taught by Kim in order to advantageously provide a structure to protect and mount the tray and to keep it secure in operation (see Kim, paragraphs [0054]-[0057]). Regarding Claim 9: Lee teaches wherein the first portion (141) of the tray (12) comprises a first region and a second region (areas of layers 13, 141) having a greater degree of heat transfer (13 is a frame) than the first region (see Figure 7). Regarding Claim 10: Lee teaches wherein the second region (13) has a less degree of restoration than the first region (141 is able to be deformed, paragraph [0032]). Regarding Claim 12: Lee teaches wherein the second region (rim of 13) comprises a portion in which the first (rim of 11 at rim of 113) and second tray assemblies (rim of 12 at rim 13) contact each other (see Figure 8). Regarding Claim 13: Lee teaches wherein a portion of the first region (layer edge of 141) has a less degree of heat transfer than the other portion of the first region (edge of 15), or a portion of the first region (layer edge of 141) has a less degree of deformation resistance and a greater degree of restoration than the other portion of the first region (141 is elastic, paragraph [0032]). Regarding Claim 15: Lee teaches wherein the tray further comprises a second portion (113) extending from a predetermined point of the first portion (141), and at least a portion of the second portion (see Figure 8) extends in a direction away from an ice making cell (113, 141) defined by the other tray assembly (11 or 12) of the first and second tray assemblies (11 and 12). Regarding Claim 17: Lee teaches wherein the tray (11 or 12) further comprises a second portion (13) extending from a predetermined point of the first portion (see Figure 8). Regarding Claim 18: Lee teaches wherein at least a portion of the second portion (13) extends in a direction away from an ice making cell (113) defined by the other tray assembly (11) of the first and second tray assemblies (11 and 12, see Figure 8). Regarding Claim 19: Lee teaches wherein the second portion (13) comprises a portion extending from the predetermined point in a horizontal direction and a portion extending upward and downward (see Figure 3) with respect to a horizontal line passing through a center of the ice making cell (113, 141). Regarding Claim 20: Lee teaches a refrigerator (paragraph [0014]) comprising: a storage chamber (paragraph [0014]); and an ice maker (10) of claim 1 . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 11 and 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2014/0182325 A1), hereafter referred to as “Lee,” in view of Kim (US 2008/0236187 A1) and Archer (3,048,986) , as applied to claim s 1 and 9 above, and further in view of An et al. (US 2018/0187941 A1), hereafter referred to as “An.” Regarding Claim 11: Lee modified supra fails to teach wherein the first region is located closer to the heater than the second region, or the first region comprises a portion in which the heater is located. An teaches a first region (underside of 110) comprises a portion in which a heater (130) is located (lower part of a tray 110, paragraph [0061]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein the first region is located closer to the heater than the second region, or the first region comprises a portion in which the heater is located of Lee modified supra as taught by An in order to advantageously remove the lower portion of ice from the ice tray (see An, paragraph [0061]). Regarding Claim 16: Lee modified supra fails to teach wherein the heater is in contact with the first portion. An teaches a heater (130) is in contact with a first portion (lower part of a tray 110, paragraph [0050]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein the heater is in contact with the first portion to the structure of Lee modified supra as taught by An in order to advantageously remove the lower portion of ice from the ice tray (see An, paragraph [0061]) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2014/0182325 A1), hereafter referred to as “Lee,” in view of Kim (US 2008/0236187 A1) and Archer (3,048,986) , as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Parker (US 2006/0266915 A1) . Regarding Claim 14: Lee modified supra fails to teach wherein a thickness of a portion of the first region from a center of the ice making cell in an outer circumferential direction of the ice making cell is less than that of the other portion of the first region. Parker teaches a thickness of a portion of a first region from a center of an ice making cell in an outer circumferential direction of the ice making cell is less than that of another portion of the first region (paragraph [0035]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein a thickness of a portion of the first region from a center of the ice making cell in an outer circumferential direction of the ice making cell is less than that of the other portion of the first region to the structure of Lee modified supra as taught by Parker in order to advantageously adjust the freezing time along certain portions of the ice making cell (see Parker, paragraph [0035]) . Conclusion 07-96 AIA 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 Application/Control Number: 18/908,412 Page 2 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/908,412 Page 3 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/908,412 Page 4 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/908,412 Page 5 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/908,412 Page 6 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/908,412 Page 7 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/908,412 Page 8 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/908,412 Page 9 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/908,412 Page 10 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/908,412 Page 11 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/908,412 Page 12 Art Unit: 3763
Prosecution Insights