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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-9) in the reply filed on 6/2/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 5, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2015/0241102) in view of FOR1 (JP2006308136A – provided by Applicant in the IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches a refrigerator (see Title, Abstract) comprising:
an ice making tray in which ice making water to be supplied (210, Fig. 4, paragraph [0170]);
an ice making device configured to generate ice by using ice making water supplied to the ice making tray (20, Fig. 2, paragraph [0032]);
an ice making heater configured to heat the ice making tray (540, paragraph [0170]);
a memory that stores at least one instruction (implicitly part of the controller recited in paragraph [0007]); and
a processor that is connected with the memory and controls the refrigerator (implicitly part of the controller recited in paragraph [0007]), wherein the processor is configured to:
a sensor configured to detect a temperature of the ice making tray (see paragraph [0009]);
detect a temperature change of the ice making tray during a cooling time corresponding to whether the ice making heater operates within a predetermined time after a start an ice making driving (see S14, S15, the temperature sensor detects temperature at the start of ice making and then again to determine if the temperature has reached the predetermined temperature, further see paragraphs [0167]-[0168], see paragraph [0009]).
Lee does not teach that based on a magnitude of the detected temperature change of the ice making tray being greater than or equal to a value corresponding to the cooling time, stop the ice making driving.
FOR1 teaches an ice maker which determines based on a detected temperature change of the ice making tray (see FOR1, Description, “the elapsed time from the water supply and the detected temperature of the ice tray thermistor 21, and a predetermined (constant) time has elapsed since the water supply, and the temperature of the ice tray thermistor 21 is predetermined (constant). When the temperature reaches below the temperature, it is determined that the ice making is completed. Here, the predetermined time may be, for example, 100 minutes from the water supply, and the predetermined temperature may be −10 ° C. In this case, it is determined that the ice making has been completed when 100 minutes or more, which is a predetermined time, has passed since the water supply and when the predetermined temperature is −10 ° C. or less, the process proceeds to step 26. If it is determined in step 25 that the ice making is not completed, the process returns to step 25, and the ice making completion determining step 25 is repeated until it is determined that the ice making is completed”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide Lee with stopping the ice maker after a magnitude of the detected temperature change of the ice making tray being greater than or equal to a value corresponding to the cooling time, as taught by FOR1, in order to ensure there is no malfunction of the ice maker.
Regarding claim 5, Lee as modified teaches the refrigerator of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to: based on the magnitude of the temperature change of the ice making tray being smaller than the value corresponding to the cooling time, continue performing the ice making driving (FOR1, Description at least notes “The temperature T1 of the thermistor 21 is detected, the process proceeds to a water supply step 52, and a water supply operation is performed from the water supply tank 12 to the ice tray 16 via the water supply path 19. Next, in the time measurement step 53, the time is counted until a predetermined time (for example, 10 minutes) at which the temperature rise of the ice tray thermistor 21 can be reliably detected, and after the predetermined time (for example, 10 minutes) has elapsed, The process proceeds to the ice tray temperature detection second step 54, and the temperature in the ice tray 16 after a predetermined time is again measured by the ice tray thermistor 21” which describes how the time measurements are made throughout the process of ice making and continues if the value is less than the maximum time).
Regarding claim 9, Lee as modified teaches refrigerator of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to: based on the operation of the ice making driving being stopped, provide information notifying that a supply state of ice making water is abnormal, and based on detecting opening of an door of the refrigerator, restart the ice making driving after a predetermined second time passes (see FOR1, Description).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2015/0241102) in view of FOR1, further in view of FOR2 (CN108613446A).
Regarding claim 6, Lee as modified teaches the refrigerator of claim 1, but does not teach the processor is configured to: based on there being a history that supply of ice making water was identified to be abnormal before the start of the ice making driving, identify whether the magnitude of the temperature change of the ice making tray during a first cooling time is greater than or equal to a first value.
FOR2 teaches a refrigerator which determines whether the water supply is abnormal to the ice making program by measuring temperature change (FOR2, see Description, “generally also for the ice making unit is abnormal or not is monitored. temperature sensor is generally the bottom measured by the ice making unit of the ice-making unit a temperature or temperature change to determine whether water supply is abnormal. In the existing refrigerator control mode in one ice making program, upon monitoring the abnormal water supply control device controlling fridge immediately generates an alarm signal to prompt the user water supply is abnormal”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide Lee as modified with determining that supply of ice making water was identified to be abnormal before the start of the ice making driving, as taught by FOR2, in order to prevent harmful damage to the refrigerator.
The Examiner notes that the combination teaches “identify whether the magnitude of the temperature change of the ice making tray during a first cooling time is greater than or equal to a first value” based on the teachings of FOR1 in claim 1.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of FOR1, further in view of FOR2 (CN108613446A) and FOR3 (JP2020038049A).
Regarding claim 8, Lee as modified teaches the refrigerator of claim 1, but does not specifically teach the processor is configured to: based on the operation of the ice making driving being stopped, provide information notifying that a supply state of ice making water is abnormal, and based on acquiring a predetermined user input, restart the ice making driving.
FOR2 teaches a refrigerator which determines whether the water supply is abnormal to the ice making program by measuring temperature change (FOR2, see Description, “generally also for the ice making unit is abnormal or not is monitored. temperature sensor is generally the bottom measured by the ice making unit of the ice-making unit a temperature or temperature change to determine whether water supply is abnormal. In the existing refrigerator control mode in one ice making program, upon monitoring the abnormal water supply control device controlling fridge immediately generates an alarm signal to prompt the user water supply is abnormal”) which generates an alarm signal when the ice maker is performing abnormally (FOR2, Description).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide Lee as modified with providing information to notifying the ice making water is abnormal, as taught by FOR2, in order to allow the user to know the refrigerator is malfunctioning to prevent further damage.
Lee as modified does not specifically teach restarting the ice making drive based on user input. FOR3 teaches an ice maker which features a predetermined value set by a user to signal for the ice maker to restart (FOR3, see Description).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide Lee as modified with restarting the ice making drive based on user input, as taught by FOR3, in order to allow the user to have greater personalization of the refrigerator.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art of record is Lee (US 2015/0241102) in view of FOR1 (JP2006308136A).
The prior art of record when considered as a whole, either alone or in combination, does not anticipate or render obvious:
Regarding claim 2, wherein the processor is configured to: based on the ice making heater operating within the predetermined time after the start of the ice making driving, identify whether a magnitude of a temperature change of the ice making tray during a first cooling time is greater than or equal to a first value, and based on the ice making heater not operating within the predetermined time after the start of the ice making driving, identify whether a magnitude of a temperature change of the ice making tray during a second cooling time, which is shorter than the first cooling time, is greater than or equal to a second value which is bigger than the first value.
Regarding claim 7, wherein the processor is configured to: based on the ice making heater operating during the first cooling time, identify whether the magnitude of the temperature change of the ice making tray during the first cooling time is greater than or equal to the first value, and based on the ice making heater not operating during the first cooling time, identify whether the magnitude of the temperature change of the ice making tray during the first cooling time is greater than or equal to a second value bigger than the first value.
In the Examiner’s opinion, it would not be obvious to further modify the prior art structures to arrive at the claimed invention, absent impermissible hindsight. Therefore, rendering claims 2 and 7, with dependent claims therefrom are considered allowable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAEL N BABAA whose telephone number is (571)270-3272. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-5 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jerry-Daryl Fletcher can be reached at (571)-270-5054. 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.
/NAEL N BABAA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights