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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “pressing part” in claim 13. See previous office action regarding interpretation.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-2, 9, 11, 13, 16, and 21-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein the heater is controlled to be turned on in at least a partial period while a cooler supplies the cold”. This constitutes an improper method step within an apparatus claim, rendering the metes and bounds of the claim unclear.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “heat being transferred from one of the first cell and the second cell to the other of the first cell and the second cell”. This constitutes an improper method step within an apparatus claim, rendering the metes and bounds of the claim unclear.
Claims 2, 9, and 33 are also rejected since they either depend from or incorporate the subject matter of claim 1.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “wherein the heater is controlled to be turned on in at least a partial period while a cooler supplies the cold”. This constitutes an improper method step within an apparatus claim, rendering the metes and bounds of the claim unclear.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “after ice making starts, the other tray includes a first portion defining a portion of the ice making cell and a second portion deformed by expansion of made ice and restored after the ice is removed”. This constitutes an improper method step within an apparatus claim, rendering the metes and bounds of the claim unclear.
Claims 13, 16, and 34 are also rejected since they either depend from or incorporate the subject matter of claim 11.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “the heat is transferred from the one of the first cell and the second cell to the other of the first cell and the second cell”. This constitutes an improper method step within an apparatus claim, rendering the metes and bounds of the claim unclear.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “water is phase changed into water by cold”. This constitutes an improper method step within an apparatus claim, rendering the metes and bounds of the claim unclear.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “during an ice making process”. This constitutes an improper method step within an apparatus claim, rendering the metes and bounds of the claim unclear.
Note further, “during an ice making process” is recited twice in claim 21 at both lines 6-7 and line 8, rendering it unclear whether these are meant to connote the same or different ice making process.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “wherein the heater is controlled to be turned on in at least a partial period while a cooler supplies the cold to make transparent ice”. This constitutes an improper method step within an apparatus claim, rendering the metes and bounds of the claim unclear.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “the heat being transferred from the heater to the ice making cell”. This constitutes an improper method step within an apparatus claim, rendering the metes and bounds of the claim unclear.
Claims 22-32 and 35 are also rejected since they either depend from or incorporate the subject matter of claim 21.
Claim 28 recites the limitation “wherein the heat is transferred from one of the first cell and the second cell to the other of the first cell and the second cell”. This constitutes an improper method step within an apparatus claim, rendering the metes and bounds of the claim unclear.
Each of claims 33-35 recite the limitation “a door that opens and closes the storage chamber”. This constitutes an improper method step within an apparatus claim, rendering the metes and bounds of the claim unclear. The limitation should be changed to “a door configured to open and close the storage chamber”.
For purposes of compact prosecution, the claims have been examined based I the interpretation that the ice maker must be structurally capable of performing the various recited method steps.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 9, 11, 13, 16, and 21-35 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
An et al. as applied in the previous office action constitutes the closes prior art.
As per independent claim 1, there is no teaching or suggestion to further modify the system of An et al. wherein one tray assembly of the first and second tray assemblies comprises a tray one of the first cell and the second cell and a tray case formed as a separate component from the tray and surrounding the tray, and wherein the tray case comprises a first portion that supports the tray having a shape corresponding to the ice making cell and a second portion extending from a predetermined point of the first portion heat being transferred from one of the first cell and the second cell to the other of the first cell and the second cell.
As per independent claim 11, there is no teaching or suggestion to further modify the system of An et al. wherein to induce ice to be made in a direction from an ice making cell one of the first cell and the second cell defined by one tray assembly of the first and second tray assemblies to an ice making the other of the first cell and the second cell defined by the other tray assembly of the first and second tray assemblies [configured such that], after an ice making process starts, the other tray assembly includes a first portion [configured to define] a portion of the ice making cell and a second portion deformed by expansion of made ice and restored after the ice is removed.
As per independent claim 21, there is no teaching or suggestion to modify the system of An et al. wherein one tray assembly of the first and second tray assemblies comprises a tray defining one of the first cell and the second cell and a tray case connected with the tray, and
wherein the tray case comprises a first portion having a shape corresponding to the ice making cell and a second portion extending from a predetermined point of the first portion, [such that the heat can be] transferred from the heater to the ice making cell.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments/arguments overcome the previously applied rejections based on An et al. However, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been necessitated.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC E NORMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4812. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30 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, 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.
/MARC E NORMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights