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.
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.
Claim limitation “first fixing structure” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “structure” coupled with functional language “fix both the lower tray and the lower supporter thereto.” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claims 1-20 have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Claim limitation “second fixing structure” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “structure” coupled with functional language “prevent the lower tray and the lower supporter from being removed from each other in a vertical direction.” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claims 5 and 6 have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Note that claim 7 includes enough structure to perform the function. Accordingly, claim 7 is not being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Claim limitation “third fixing structure” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “structure” coupled with functional language “prevent the lower tray and the lower cover from being removed from each other in a frontward/backward direction and a left/right direction” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claims 8-12 have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Claim limitation “fourth fixing structure” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “structure” coupled with functional language “prevents the lower supporter and the lower cover from being removed from each other in a left-right direction” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim 13 has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Note that claim 14 includes enough structure to perform the function. Accordingly, claim 14 is not being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
first fixing structure → a front wall of the lower cover including a first front stopping step portion pressing a lower portion of the lower supporter and a second front stopping step portion pressing an upper portion of a front surface of the lower tray; and a rear wall of the lower cover including a first rear stopping step portion pressing a lower portion of the lower supporter and a second rear stopping step portion pressing an upper portion of a rear surface of the lower tray and a resilient latching hook engagement of integral step portions of the lower cover without the use of fasteners.
second fixing structure → an insertion protrusion formed on and protruding downwardly from the lower tray; and a slot formed in the lower supporter, wherein the insertion protrusion passes through the slot.
third fixing structure → a first upper protrusion formed on the lower tray so as to protrude upwardly of the lower tray; a first receiving groove defined in a lower portion of the lower cover so as to receive therein the first upper protrusion.
fourth fixing structure → side limiters disposed at both sides of the lower tray, each side limiter extending vertically to overlap with side surfaces of the lower supporter and the lower cover.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US2020/0158399 to Kim et al., hereinafter referred to as Kim.
In reference to claim 21, Kim discloses the claimed invention including:
An ice maker comprising:
an upper tray (150) including a plurality of upper chambers (152, see figure 20);
a lower tray (250) including a plurality of lower chambers (252a-c, see figure 30);
a lower supporter (270) supporting a lower portion of the lower tray (250); and
a lower cover (210) that restrains the lower tray (250) and the lower supporter (270), wherein a front wall of the lower cover includes a first front stopping step portion (217, see figure 35) that presses a lower portion of the lower supporter (see annotated reference below to see where 217 presses the lower supporter) and a second front stopping step portion (see in figure 30 that there are three bosses 217) that presses an upper portion of a front surface of the lower tray (see annotated reference below for the examiner's to see where 217 presses the lower tray), wherein a rear wall of the lower cover (215) includes a first rear stopping step portion (216, see figure 35) that presses a lower portion of the lower supporter (see below) and a second rear stopping step portion that presses an upper portion of a rear surface of the lower tray (see figure 31 where there are multiple 216), and wherein the lower tray and the lower supporter are both fixed to the lower cover (see annotated reference below). Note that when the fasteners (B1 and B2 disclosed as a screw or bolt) are fixed to the tray, the action of the screws will draw lower cover (210) to be in contact with and press the lower supporter (270) at the below defined areas.
PNG
media_image1.png
235
331
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
224
489
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed July 21, 2026, with respect to the provisional rejection of claims 1 and 17 on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting have been fully considered and are persuasive. The double patenting rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s statement on the record beginning on page 13 of the response that the “fixing member” requires further structure of a resilient latching/hook engagement of integral step portions of the lower cover without use of an additional fastener is persuasive that Kim does not teach the structure nor an equivalent. Therefore, the rejection of claims 1-17 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Kim have been withdrawn. It is noted that this clarifying statement by Applicant reveals that claim 4 does not include enough structure to perform the function of fixing as disclosed as claim 4 does not require the resilient hook/latch. Accordingly, the claimed “first fixing structure” of claim 4 is determined to also be interpreted under 35 USC 112(f).
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 CASSEY D BAUER whose telephone number is (571)270-7113. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs: 10AM-8PM (ET).
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.
/CASSEY D BAUER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights