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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/12/2024 was filed on or after the mailing date of the Application. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the first cooling fin having an inclined surface, as disclosed in claim 8, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 4 and 15 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.
Regarding claim 4, the recitation of “...cold air introduced into the ice maker flows from a position in rear of the second-row inlet guide, flows through an area between adjacent ones of the second-row inlet guides, and then flows through an area between adjacent ones of the first-row inlet guides and is discharged to an outside out of the ice maker…,” renders the claim unclear. Specifically, the claim appears to be a direct translation to English and is replete with idiomatic language of a foreign translation making interpretation of the claim difficult. Therefore, the claim and all claims depending therefrom are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
For the purposes of examination, the limitation is generally understood by the Examiner to mean – cold air introduced into the ice maker flows from a rear position of the second-row inlet guide, flows through an area between adjacent second-row inlet guides, and then flows through an area between adjacent first-row inlet guides, and is discharged to an outside of the ice maker –
Regarding Claim 15, the recitation of “...wherein each of at least some of the plurality of second cooling fins extends to a front surface of the second-row inlet guide…,” renders the claim unclear. Specifically, the recitation “each of”, followed immediately by “some of” appear contradictory, making interpretation of the claim language difficult. It is unclear if some of the cooling fins extend to a front surface of the second-row inlet guide, or if each of the cooling fins extend to a front surface of the second-row inlet guide. Therefore, the claim and all claims depending therefrom, do not meet the minimum required threshold for clarity and precision in order to establish the metes and bounds of the claims, and are thus rejected as being indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 1, 4-5, 7-11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20200300527 A1, hereinafter “Kim”), and further in view of Tikhonov et al. (US 20080264082 A1, hereinafter “Tikhonov”)
Regarding Claim 1, Kim teaches an ice maker [100; Figs. 3-34; ¶ 0087-0090] comprising:
an upper tray [150] including a plurality of upper chambers [111] [¶ 0125-0135; Fig. 15, 27; upper tray 150 defines a portion of the upper ice chamber 111]; and
a lower tray [251] including a plurality of lower chambers [¶ 0486-0489; Fig. 27; lower tray body 251 defines a lower chamber 252 that is a portion of the ice chamber 111],
wherein the upper tray includes:
an upper plate [121] [¶ 0198-0202; Fig. 6A; upper plate 121 is connected to upper tray 150];
the plurality of upper chambers extending downwardly of the upper plate [¶ 0198; a portion of the upper tray contacts a portion of the bottom surface of the upper plate], each row extending along a first direction [Figs. 6B, 10; the row of ice trace extends along the A direction relative to the cited figures (i.e. a first direction)];
a plurality of inlet guides [154] respectively communicating with the plurality of upper chambers and extending upwardly of the upper plate, wherein the plurality of inlet guides include first-row inlet guide arranged in a first row [¶ 0325-0332; Fig. 9; upper openings 154 may be defined in the upper tray body to communicate with upper chambers 152; also see Fig. 6A showing the guides extruding through the upper plate]; and
Kim does not explicitly teach wherein the plurality of upper chambers arrange in a plurality of rows, wherein second-row inlet guides are arranged in a second row, and a plurality of first cooling fins, each first cooling fin being disposed between the first-row inlet guide and the second-row inlet guides, wherein each first cooling fin extends from each first-row inlet guide along a second direction intersecting the first direction.
However, Tikhonov teaches an ice making device and refrigerator having the same [Figs. 1-5] comprising an ice tray to receive water to be frozen [31], wherein the ice tray comprises a plurality of chambers arranged in rows [see Figs. 4-5] [¶ 0043-0045]. Tikhonov further teaches a plurality of fins [31h] provided between the ice making chambers [Fig. 5], wherein the fins are provided to traverse the plurality of rows in a second direction [¶ 0053-0054; the longer edge portion of 31 is considered to be the first direction (i.e. left to right in Figs. 2-3), therefore the fins 31h run perpendicular to the first direction]. Tikhonov discloses that these fins provide a whirlpool induction effect for the air flowing around the chambers, consequently improving the heat exchange between the cool air and the ice making part [¶ 0053-0054]. Therefore when combining Kim and Tikhonov, it would be an ordinary operation to provide the chambers of Kim in plurality, to arrive at a device with a plurality of rows of ice chambers, each row having the same inlet guides as the first, further in combination with the disclosed fins in Tikhonov to traverse the plurality of rows, perpendicular to a first direction. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the plurality of ice making chamber rows and cooling fins as claimed by known methods and that in combination, the plurality of ice making chamber rows and cooling fins would perform the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. to increase ice production and to provide a whirlpool induction effect for the air flowing around the chambers, consequently improving the heat exchange between the cool air and the ice making part [¶ 0053-0054].
Therefore, it is a simple mechanical expedient that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Kim to have wherein the plurality of upper chambers arrange in a plurality of rows, wherein second-row inlet guides are arranged in a second row, and a plurality of first cooling fins, each first cooling fin being disposed between the first-row inlet guide and the second-row inlet guides, wherein each first cooling fin extends from each first-row inlet guide along a second direction intersecting the first direction, in view of the teachings of Tikhonov, where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. to increase ice production and to provide a whirlpool induction effect for the air flowing around the chambers, consequently improving the heat exchange between the cool air and the ice making part.
Regarding Claim 4, Kim, as modified, teaches the ice maker of claim 1 above and Kim teaches wherein the ice maker is configured such that cold air introduced into the ice maker flows from a position in rear of the second-row inlet guide [Figs. 7-8; ¶ 0054], flows through an area between adjacent ones of the second-row inlet guides, and then flows through an area between adjacent ones of the first-row inlet guides and is discharged to an outside out of the ice maker [¶ 0252-0253; Kim discloses an imaginary line L1 bisecting the center of the air entrance and a secondary line L2 bisecting the first row, wherein Kim states that Lines L2 and L1 should be parallel and spaced apart by a distance in the B direction. Therefore, when in combination with Tikhonov as above, when providing a secondary row of ice chambers (proposed L3), one of ordinary skill in the art would commonsensically follow the same design consideration, providing a distance in the B direction between the air inlet and the plurality of rows, such that they are parallel, thereby arriving at the claimed configuration].
Regarding Claim 5, Kim, as modified, teaches the ice maker of claim 1 above and Tikhonov teaches wherein the first cooling fin [31h] extends rearwardly from a rear surface of the first-row inlet guide [Note: rearwardly is understood by the Examiner in this context to be equivalent to the second direction] [Fig. 5; ¶ 0054; apparent from inspection that fins 31h extend across the plurality of rows in the second direction (or rearward direction); the fins 31h are understood to provide a function of inducing whirlpool of the cool air flowing throughout the system, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would commonsensically provide the fins across the inlet guides in Kim in order to receive said cool air flow, therefore providing that the combination necessarily provides the fins across the inlet guides in order to fulfill the function of inducing whirlpooling of the cooling air].
Regarding Claim 7, Kim, as modified, teaches the ice maker of claim 1 and the combination of Kim teaches wherein at least a portion of the first cooling fin protrudes upwardly beyond an uppermost surface of the upper plate, wherein a height of the first cooling fin is smaller than a height of the inlet guide [While Tikhonov does not explicitly disclose that the fins 31h protrude above the upper plate (i.e. the top surface of 31c), Tikhonov does disclose that one function of the fins is to provide a whirlpool effect of the air being provided to the ice making chambers [¶ 0054]. Therefore, when considering a combination of structure with Kim, one of ordinary skill in the art would necessarily provide the fins in a similar manner to receive the airflow, in order to fulfill the same function in a similar manner. In other words, because the structure of Kim provides the cold air above the upper plate, one of ordinary skill in the art would necessarily provide the fins above the plate in order to receive the airflow, therefore arriving at the claimed structure. Lastly, the specific height of the fins relative to the inlet guide may be considered an obvious change in shape, as the relative dimensions of an air guide in an air flow path is known to provide either laminar or turbulent flow, wherein specific desirable configurations may be achieved through routine experimentation; the instant specification has been further reviewed and no elements of criticality could be found regarding the relative heights of the fins and the inlet guides [MPEP 2144.04-2144.05]].
Regarding Claim 8, Kim, as modified, teaches the ice maker of claim 1 above and Tikhonov teaches wherein the first cooling fin [31h] includes an inclined surface having a height decreases as the first cooling fin extends rearwardly [Note: rearwardly is understood by the Examiner in this context to be equivalent to the second direction] [Fig. 5; apparent from inspection that the fins span over the inclined surfaces of the ice making chambers, therefore necessarily providing that the fins also have an inclined surface decreasing in height as the contact the ice making chambers].
Regarding Claim 9, Kim, as modified, teaches the ice maker of claim 1 and while Tikhonov teaches a plurality of fins [31h], this embodiment of Tikhonov does not explicitly teach wherein each of the plurality of first cooling fins extends obliquely toward a side from which cold air is introduced into the ice maker. However, Tikhonov teaches another embodiment [Figs. 2 and 4] comprising another set of heat exchange fins [31g], wherein the fins are provided in parallel to the direction of airflow through air channel 31b, extending towards the direction of air introduced from an air guide pipe 34 at the leftmost edge of Fig. 2 [¶ 0053]. Tikhonov teaches that this structural configuration accomplishes a more efficient heat exchange between the ice making part and the cool air [¶ 0053]. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the fins parallel to the airflow and the fins perpendicular to airflow (i.e. Figs. 4 and 5 of Tikhonov) as claimed by known methods and that in combination, the combination of fins would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. providing fins parallel to the direction of airflow accomplishes a more efficient heat exchange between the ice making part and the cool air, thereby improving the system [¶ 0053].
Therefore, it is a simple mechanical expedient that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination of Kim and Tikhonov to have wherein each of the plurality of first cooling fins extends obliquely toward a side from which cold air is introduced into the ice maker, in view of the teachings of Tikhonov where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. providing fins parallel to the direction of airflow accomplishes a more efficient heat exchange between the ice making part and the cool air, thereby improving the system.
Regarding Claim 10, Kim, as modified, teaches the ice maker of claim 1 above and Kim teaches wherein the upper chamber is depressed downwardly beyond an uppermost surface of the upper plate [¶ 0198; See Figs. 6A-6B and 27; apparent from inspection that ice chamber 111 is disposed below plate 121, wherein upper tray 150 may contact the bottom surface of plate 121],
wherein an upper surface of the upper chamber includes a curved surface [¶ 0099; chamber 111 may have a spherical shape].
Regarding Claim 11, Kim, as modified, teaches the ice maker of claim 1 above and Kim teaches wherein the upper tray further includes a heating wire receiving groove [124a] and extending along at least a portion of an outer circumference of each of the inlet guides [¶ 0398-0401, 0417; heater accommodation groove 124a may be disposed in a recess of the upper case],
wherein the heating wire receiving groove is defined by an outer sidewall and an inner sidewall respectively extending along outer and inner side surfaces of the heating wire receiving groove [¶ 0398-0401, 0417; heater accommodation groove 124a extends along a circumferential tray opening of the upper case, thereby providing an enclosure with an inner and outer sidewall; also see Fig. 15] [¶ 0339-0342; furthermore, accommodation part 160 may be considered to be holding the heater coupling part 124, such that both ends of the crevasse 160 similarly form the claimed inner and outer walls; see Fig. 9 and 15],
wherein one end of the first cooling fin extends to be connected to the inner sidewall [Fig. 9; Kim teaches a plurality of ribs 155a and 162 that are apparently capable of connecting the inner sidewall; therefore the combination with Tikhonov providing the fins across the plurality of rows may ordinarily provide the fins in contact with the inner sidewall of 160].
Regarding Claim 20, Kim teaches a refrigerator [1; Figs. 1-2] comprising:
at least one storage compartment [at least 3 or 4] [¶ 0043, 0082];
at least one door [at least 5 or 6] for opening and closing the storage compartment [¶ 0084-0085]; and
an ice maker [100] [Figs. 3-34] mounted into the storage compartment or the door [¶ 0089; the ice making may be mounted in the freezing compartment],
wherein the ice maker includes an ice tray [at least 150 and 251],
wherein the ice tray includes:
a plate [at least 121];
a plurality of ice chambers [111] extending downward from the plate [¶ 0125-0135; Fig. 15, 27; upper tray 150 defines a portion of the upper ice chamber 111];
a plurality of inlet guides [154] respectively communicating with the plurality of ice chambers, and extending upwardly of the plate, wherein the plurality of inlet guides include first-row inlet guide arranged in a first row [¶ 0325-0332; Fig. 9; upper openings 154 may be defined in the upper tray body to communicate with upper chambers 152; also see Fig. 6A showing the guides extruding through the upper plate]; and
Kim does not explicitly teach wherein the plurality of ice chambers are arranged in a plurality of rows, each row extending along a first direction, wherein second-row inlet guides are arranged in a second row, and a plurality of first cooling fins, each first cooling fin being disposed between the first-row inlet guide and the second-row inlet guides, wherein each first cooling fin extends from each first-row inlet guide along a second direction intersecting the first direction.
However, Tikhonov teaches an ice making device and refrigerator having the same [Figs. 1-5] comprising an ice tray to receive water to be frozen [31], wherein the ice tray comprises a plurality of chambers arranged in rows [see Figs. 4-5] [¶ 0043-0045]. Tikhonov further teaches a plurality of fins [31h] provided between the ice making chambers [Fig. 5], wherein the fins are provided to traverse the plurality of rows in a second direction [¶ 0053-0054; the longer edge portion of 31 is considered to be the first direction (i.e. left to right in Figs. 2-3), therefore the fins 31h run perpendicular to the first direction]. Tikhonov discloses that these fins provide a whirlpool induction effect for the air flowing around the chambers, consequently improving the heat exchange between the cool air and the ice making part [¶ 0053-0054]. Therefore when combining Kim and Tikhonov, it would be an ordinary operation to provide the chambers of Kim in plurality, to arrive at a device with a plurality of rows of ice chambers, each row having the same inlet guides as the first, further in combination with the disclosed fins in Tikhonov to traverse the plurality of rows, perpendicular to a first direction. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the plurality of ice making chamber rows and cooling fins as claimed by known methods and that in combination, the plurality of ice making chamber rows and cooling fins would perform the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. to increase ice production and to provide a whirlpool induction effect for the air flowing around the chambers, consequently improving the heat exchange between the cool air and the ice making part [¶ 0053-0054].
Therefore, it is a simple mechanical expedient that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Kim to have wherein the plurality of upper chambers arrange in a plurality of rows, wherein second-row inlet guides are arranged in a second row, and a plurality of first cooling fins, each first cooling fin being disposed between the first-row inlet guide and the second-row inlet guides, wherein each first cooling fin extends from each first-row inlet guide along a second direction intersecting the first direction, in view of the teachings of Tikhonov, where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. to increase ice production and to provide a whirlpool induction effect for the air flowing around the chambers, consequently improving the heat exchange between the cool air and the ice making part.
Claims 2-3, 6, 12-13 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim and Tikhonov as in claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 20240003607 A1, hereinafter “Lee”).
Regarding Claim 2, Kim, as modified, teaches the ice maker of claim 1 above but Kim does not explicitly teach wherein the plurality of inlet guides are arranged alternately with each other in a zigzag manner.
However, Lee teaches an ice maker [100; Figs. 2-7] comprising a plurality of ice forming chambers formed by curved surfaces [17] (or ice making parts 12) of an ice tray [10] [¶ 0064-0065; Fig. 4]. Lee teaches that the ice making parts may be arranged in the tray body in a zigzag formation [¶ 0063]. Lee further teaches that offsetting the ice making parts (ice making holders) within the tray in a zigzag manner provides a more efficient use of space to produce the ice, therefore reducing the possible size of the ice tray while maintaining the size of the ice and collectedly improving the cold air supply to the ice, thus improving the system [¶ 0047]. Thus, when providing the combination of Kim above in view of Lee, the inlet guides would necessarily also be provided in a zigzag manner, as the inlet guides correlate with the location of their accompanying ice making chambers. Therefore providing the chambers in a zigzag manner necessarily provides the inlet guides in the same configuration. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the zigzag manner as claimed by known methods and that in combination, the zigzag manner would perform the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. offsetting the ice making parts (ice making holders) within the tray in a zigzag manner provides a more efficient use of space to produce the ice, therefore reducing the possible size of the ice tray while maintaining the size of the ice and collectedly improving the cold air supply to the ice, thus improving the system [¶ 0047].
Therefore, it is a simple mechanical expedient that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Kim to have wherein the plurality of inlet guides are arranged alternately with each other in a zigzag manner, in view of the teachings of Lee where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. offsetting the ice making parts (ice making holders) within the tray in a zigzag manner provides a more efficient use of space to produce the ice, therefore reducing the possible size of the ice tray while maintaining the size of the ice and collectedly improving the cold air supply to the ice, thus improving the system.
Regarding Claim 3, Kim, as modified, teaches the ice maker of claim 1 above but Kim does not explicitly teach wherein one second-row inlet guide is disposed between the first-row inlet guides adjacent to each other in the first direction, wherein one first-row inlet guide is disposed between the second-row inlet guides adjacent to each other in the first direction.
However, Lee teaches an ice maker [100; Figs. 2-7] comprising a plurality of ice forming chambers formed by curved surfaces [17] (or ice making parts 12) of an ice tray [10] [¶ 0064-0065; Fig. 4]. Lee teaches that the ice making parts may be arranged in the tray body in a zigzag formation manner (providing the second-row inlet guides between adjacent first-row inlet guides, with the first-row inlet guides doing the same is understood as a zigzag formation) [¶ 0063]. Lee further teaches that offsetting the ice making parts (ice making holders) within the tray in a zigzag, provides a more efficient use of space to produce the ice, therefore reducing the possible size of the ice tray while maintaining the size of the ice and collectedly improving the cold air supply to the ice, thus improving the system [¶ 0047]. Thus, when providing the combination of Kim above in view of Lee, the inlet guides would necessarily also be provided in a zigzag manner (providing the second-row inlet guides between adjacent first-row inlet guides, with the first-row inlet guides doing the same), as the inlet guides correlate with the location of their accompanying ice making chambers. Therefore providing the chambers in a zigzag manner necessarily provides the inlet guides in the same configuration. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the zigzag manner as claimed by known methods and that in combination, the zigzag manner would perform the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. offsetting the ice making parts (ice making holders) within the tray in a zigzag manner provides a more efficient use of space to produce the ice, therefore reducing the possible size of the ice tray while maintaining the size of the ice and collectedly improving the cold air supply to the ice, thus improving the system [¶ 0047].
Therefore, it is a simple mechanical expedient that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Kim to have wherein one second-row inlet guide is disposed between the first-row inlet guides adjacent to each other in the first direction, wherein one first-row inlet guide is disposed between the second-row inlet guides adjacent to each other in the first direction, in view of the teachings of Lee where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. offsetting the ice making parts (ice making holders) within the tray in a zigzag manner provides a more efficient use of space to produce the ice, therefore reducing the possible size of the ice tray while maintaining the size of the ice and collectedly improving the cold air supply to the ice, thus improving the system.
Regarding Claim 6, Kim, as modified, teaches the ice maker of claim 1 above but Tikhonov does not explicitly teach wherein the first cooling fin is disposed between the second-row inlet guides adjacent to each other in the first direction.
However, Lee teaches an ice maker [100; Figs. 2-7] comprising a plurality of ice forming chambers formed by curved surfaces [17] (or ice making parts 12) of an ice tray [10] [¶ 0064-0065; Fig. 4]. Lee teaches that the ice making parts may be arranged in the tray body in a zigzag formation manner [¶ 0063]. Lee further teaches that offsetting the ice making parts (ice making holders) within the tray in a zigzag, provides a more efficient use of space to produce the ice, therefore reducing the possible size of the ice tray while maintaining the size of the ice and collectedly improving the cold air supply to the ice, thus improving the system [¶ 0047]. Thus, when providing the combination of Kim above in view of Lee, the inlet guides would necessarily also be provided in a zigzag manner (providing the second-row inlet guides between adjacent first-row inlet guides, with the first-row inlet guides doing the same), as the inlet guides correlate with the location of their accompanying ice making chambers. Therefore providing the chambers in a zigzag manner necessarily provides the inlet guides in the same configuration. Thus, the fin structure of Tikhonov being provided in the second direction, would commonsensically be disposed between the second-row inlet guides adjacent to each other in the first direction, as Lee teaches known benefits of offsetting the rows. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the fin configuration as claimed by known methods and that in combination, the fin configuration would perform the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. offsetting the ice making parts (ice making holders) within the tray in a zigzag manner provides a more efficient use of space to produce the ice, therefore reducing the possible size of the ice tray while maintaining the size of the ice and collectedly improving the cold air supply to the ice, thus improving the system [¶ 0047].
Therefore, it is a simple mechanical expedient that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Kim to have wherein the first cooling fin is disposed between the second-row inlet guides adjacent to each other in the first direction, in view of the teachings of Lee where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. offsetting the ice making parts (ice making holders) within the tray in a zigzag manner provides a more efficient use of space to produce the ice, therefore reducing the possible size of the ice tray while maintaining the size of the ice and collectedly improving the cold air supply to the ice, thus improving the system.
Regarding Claim 12, Kim, as modified, teaches the ice maker of claim 1 above and Tikhonov teaches wherein the upper tray further includes a plurality of second cooling fins [31h] [Fig. 5; fins 31h may be considered both the first and second fins, wherein the fins merely alternate (i.e. the leftmost fin is considered a first fin, the adjacent fin is considered a second fin, the next another first fin, etc.)], however Tikhonov does not explicitly teach each second cooling fin being disposed between the first-row inlet guides adjacent to each other.
However, Lee teaches an ice maker [100; Figs. 2-7] comprising a plurality of ice forming chambers formed by curved surfaces [17] (or ice making parts 12) of an ice tray [10] [¶ 0064-0065; Fig. 4]. Lee teaches that the ice making parts may be arranged in the tray body in a zigzag formation [¶ 0063]. Lee further teaches that offsetting the ice making parts (ice making holders) within the tray in a zigzag manner provides a more efficient use of space to produce the ice, therefore reducing the possible size of the ice tray while maintaining the size of the ice and collectedly improving the cold air supply to the ice, thus improving the system [¶ 0047]. Thus, when providing the combination of Kim and Tikhonov above in view of Lee, one would likely implement the fins of Tikhonov [31h] in a similar manner to the offset row (i.e. the fin running through the center of the ice making part). Thus, the second fin structure of Tikhonov being provided in the second direction, extending from the center of the offset row, would commonsensically be disposed between the first-row inlet guides adjacent to each other in the first direction, as Lee teaches known benefits of offsetting the rows. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the offset cooling fin as claimed by known methods and that in combination, the offset cooling fin would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. offsetting the ice making parts (ice making holders) within the tray in a zigzag manner provides a more efficient use of space to produce the ice, therefore reducing the possible size of the ice tray while maintaining the size of the ice and collectedly improving the cold air supply to the ice, thus improving the system [¶ 0047].
Therefore, it is a simple mechanical expedient that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Kim to have each second cooling fin being disposed between the first-row inlet guides adjacent to each other, in view of the teachings of Lee where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. offsetting the ice making parts (ice making holders) within the tray in a zigzag manner provides a more efficient use of space to produce the ice, therefore reducing the possible size of the ice tray while maintaining the size of the ice and collectedly improving the cold air supply to the ice, thus improving the system.
Regarding Claim 13, Kim, as modified, teaches the ice maker of claim 12 above and Tikhonov teaches wherein the first cooling fins and the second cooling fins are arranged alternately with each other in the first direction [Fig. 5; fins 31h may be considered both the first and second fins, wherein the fins merely alternate (i.e. the leftmost fin is considered a first fin, the adjacent fin is considered a second fin, the next another first fin, etc.); further consider the combination of Lee discussed in claim 12 above, wherein providing the fins to the offset row would be commonsensical in order to provide the fins as applied in Tikhonov (i.e. protruding from the center of the respective offset ice making parts), thereby necessarily alternating first and second fins 31h, because the rows are also alternating along the direction of airflow].
Regarding Claim 15, Kim, as modified, teaches the ice maker of claim 12 above and Tikhonov wherein each of at least some of the plurality of second cooling fins extends to a front surface of the second-row inlet guide [Fig. 5; fins 31h may be considered both the first and second fins, wherein the fins merely alternate (i.e. the leftmost fin is considered a first fin, the adjacent fin is considered a second fin, the next another first fin, etc.); further consider the combination of Lee discussed in claim 12 above, wherein providing the fins to the offset row would be commonsensical in order to provide the fins as applied in Tikhonov (i.e. protruding from the center of the respective offset ice making parts), thereby necessarily alternating first and second fins 31h, because the rows are also alternating along the direction of airflow].
Regarding Claim 16, Kim, as modified, teaches the ice maker of claim 12 above and Kim teaches wherein the upper tray further includes a heating wire receiving groove [124a] and extending along at least a portion of an outer circumference of each of the inlet guides [¶ 0398-0401, 0417; heater accommodation groove 124a may be disposed in a recess of the upper case],
wherein the heating wire receiving groove is defined by an outer sidewall and an inner sidewall respectively extending along outer and inner side surfaces of the heating wire receiving groove [¶ 0398-0401, 0417; heater accommodation groove 124a extends along a circumferential tray opening of the upper case, thereby providing an enclosure with an inner and outer sidewall; also see Fig. 15] [¶ 0339-0342; furthermore, accommodation part 160 may be considered to be holding the heater coupling part 124, such that both ends of the crevasse 160 similarly form the claimed inner and outer walls; see Fig. 9 and 15],
wherein one end of the second cooling fin extends to be connected to the inner sidewall [Fig. 9; Kim teaches a plurality of ribs 155a and 162 that are apparently capable of connecting the inner sidewall; therefore the combination with Tikhonov providing the fins across the plurality of rows may ordinarily provide the fins in contact with the inner sidewall of 160].
Regarding Claim 17, Kim, as modified, teaches the ice maker of claim 16 above and Kim teaches wherein a height of the second cooling fin is equal to a height of the inner sidewall [Fig. 9; Kim teaches a plurality of ribs 155a and 162 that are apparently capable of connecting the inner sidewall, and are apparently at the same height; therefore the combination with Tikhonov providing the fins across the plurality of rows may ordinarily provide the fins in contact with the inner sidewall of 160].
Regarding Claim 18, Kim, as modified, teaches the ice maker of claim 1 above and Kim teaches wherein the upper tray further includes depressed patterns respectively formed in rear of the plurality of inlet guides [See Fig. 5 and 9; upper tray 150 comprises of depressed patterns around each respective inlet guide 154, thus necessarily also forming around the rear], wherein the depressed pattern is depressed downwardly beyond the upper plate [Fig. 9; apparent from inspection].
Regarding Claim 19, Kim, as modified, teaches the ice maker of claim 18, wherein each depressed pattern is disposed so as to overlap each inlet guide adjacent thereto in the second direction [Fig. 9; apparent from inspection that each circular depressed pattern around each respective inlet guide appear to coincide with the adjacent depression].
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, Tikhonov and Lee as in claim 12 above, and further in view of Choi (US 20190331381 A1).
Regarding Claim 14, Kim, as modified, teaches the ice maker of claim 12 above but Kim does not explicitly teach wherein the second cooling fin does not protrude upwardly beyond an uppermost surface of the upper plate, wherein a height of the second cooling fin is smaller than a height of the first cooling fin.
However, Choi teaches and ice maker and refrigerator having the same [Figs. 1-9] wherein an ice making assembly [200] may comprise at least an ice tray [2100] and a plurality of heat transfer fins [2106b, 2107b] such that at least one of the heat transfer fins [2107b] may be made of varying width or thickness, and may also vary in the height dimensions having different wave or zigzag shapes when viewed from the side [¶ 0061-0062], thus providing that fins 2107b may be shorter than 2106b. Choi further teaches that having different lengths, heights, and depths of varying heat transfer fins along a certain dimension may vary the performance according to a specific interface, thereby enhancing the efficiency of the heat exchange between the cold air and the ice tray [¶ 0062]. Choi therefore indicates that fin size and shape may also be characteristic to the specific goals of an individual structure at the time of design, wherein one of ordinary skill in the art may provide the shape of the second fin such that it does not protrude through the upper most surface of the upper plate. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the varying fin size as claimed by known methods and that in combination, the fin size would perform the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. having different lengths, heights, and depths of varying heat transfer fins along a certain dimension may vary the performance according to a specific interface, thereby enhancing the efficiency of the heat exchange between the cold air and the ice tray [¶ 0062].
Therefore, it is a simple mechanical expedient that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Kim to have wherein the second cooling fin does not protrude upwardly beyond an uppermost surface of the upper plate, wherein a height of the second cooling fin is smaller than a height of the first cooling fin, in view of the teachings of Choi where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. having different lengths, heights, and depths of varying heat transfer fins along a certain dimension may vary the performance according to a specific interface, thereby enhancing the efficiency of the heat exchange between the cold air and the ice tray.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEITH S MYERS whose telephone number is (571)272-5102. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:00.
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.
/KEITH STANLEY MYERS/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights