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 Status
Claim 1 has been canceled. Claims 2-21 are new.
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.
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 2-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son et al. (US 2013/0081412 A1), hereafter to “Son,” Campbell et al. (3,724,804), hereafter referred to as “Campbell,” and Bauerlein (2,969,651).
Regarding Claim 2: Son teaches a refrigerator (paragraph [0002]) comprising: a cabinet (paragraph [0014]) defining a refrigerating compartment (paragraph [0014]) and a freezing compartment (paragraph [0014]); and an ice maker (paragraph [0014]) provided in the freezing compartment (paragraph [0016]), wherein the ice maker (10) includes: an upper tray (11) defining an upper chamber (cells 113), a lower tray (12) defining a lower chamber (cells 141) configured to define an ice chamber (113 and 141) together with the upper chamber (113) based on the lower tray (12) being rotated to come into contact with the upper tray (paragraph [0072]), and a driver (paragraph [0072]) configured to pivot the lower tray (12) to open and close the upper tray (11) and the lower tray (paragraph [0072]), wherein the lower tray (12) includes a mounting face (see Figure 3) onto which the upper tray (11) is seated (see Figure 3), wherein a bottom face of the upper tray faces the mounting face (see Figure 3).
Son fails to teach the upper tray made of an elastic material and the lower tray made of an elastic material; the bottom face of the upper tray includes (i) a first surface on which an upper rib is formed and (ii) a second surface on which no upper rib is formed, wherein the first surface and the second surface are disposed so as not to overlap with each other along a circumference of the bottom face, and wherein the second surface is positioned closer to a pivoting shaft of the lower tray than the first surface.
Campbell teaches a tray (20) made of elastic material (Column 1, lines 32-41).
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 the upper tray made of an elastic material and the lower tray made of an elastic material to the structure of Son as taught by Campbell in order to advantageously provide using a material that can allow for the tray to flex for ice removal (see Campbell, Column 1, lines 32-41).
Bauerlein teaches a face (2) of a tray (15) includes (i) a first surface on which a rib (1) is formed and (ii) a second surface on which no rib is formed (see slant of 2, edge with no rib 1), wherein the first surface and the second surface are disposed so as not to overlap with each other along a circumference of the face (see Figure 2), and wherein the second surface is positioned closer to a pivoting shaft (51 and 20) of the tray (15) than the first surface (see Figure 2).
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 the bottom face of the upper tray includes (i) a first surface on which an upper rib is formed and (ii) a second surface on which no upper rib is formed, wherein the first surface and the second surface are disposed so as not to overlap with each other along a circumference of the bottom face, and wherein the second surface is positioned closer to a pivoting shaft of the lower tray than the first surface to the structure of Son modified supra as taught by Bauerlein in order to advantageously provide assistance in flexing the mold for ice release (see Column 4, lines 14-24 and Column 5, lines 60-66 of Bauerlein).
Regarding Claim 3: Son modified supra fails to teach wherein an area of the first surface is greater than an area of the second surface.
Therefore, since the general condition of the claim is disclosed by the prior art reference, it is not inventive to change surfaces areas of the structure. 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 an area of the first surface is greater than an area of the second surface to the structure of Son modified supra in order to advantageously provide varying shape of the ice tray assembly components. Furthermore, absent evidence of criticality, change in shape is merely design choice and would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art would before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2144.04 IV A. and B.
Regarding Claim 4: Son modified supra teaches wherein, at an ice-making position in which the upper chamber (113 of Son) and the lower chamber (141 of Son) are joined together to form the ice chamber (see Figure 8): the upper rib (1 of Bauerlein applied to 11 of Son) is in contact with the mounting face (see Figure 2 of Bauerlein), so that at least a portion of the first surface is spaced apart from the mounting face (see Figure 2 of Bauerlein), and the second surface is in contact with the mounting face (see lip of 12 of Bauerlein applied to 11 of Son).
Regarding Claim 5: Son modified supra fails to teach wherein the upper rib is inclined along a circumference of the upper chamber.
Therefore, since the general condition of the claim is disclosed by the prior art reference, it is not inventive to change inclinations of the rib of the structure. 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 upper rib is inclined along a circumference of the upper chamber to the structure of Son modified supra in order to advantageously provide varying shape of the ice tray assembly components. Furthermore, absent evidence of criticality, change in shape is merely design choice and would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art would before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2144.04 IV A. and B.
Regarding Claim 6: Son modified supra fails to teach further comprising: a lower rib protruding from the mounting face of the lower tray.
Bauerlein teaches a lower rib (1) protruding from a mounting face (2) of a lower tray (15).
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 lower rib protruding from the mounting face of the lower tray to the structure of Son modified supra as taught by Bauerlein in order to advantageously provide assistance in flexing the mold for ice release (see Column 4, lines 14-24 and Column 5, lines 60-66 of Bauerlein).
Regarding Claim 7: Son modified supra fails to teach wherein the lower rib and the upper rib are arranged to be staggered with each other.
Therefore, since the general condition of the claim is disclosed by the prior art reference, it is not inventive to change wherein the lower rib and the upper rib are arranged to be staggered with each other of the structure. 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 lower rib and the upper rib are arranged to be staggered with each other to the structure of Son modified supra in order to advantageously provide varying shape/configurations of the ice tray assembly components. Furthermore, absent evidence of criticality, change in shape or rearrangement of parts is merely design choice and would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art would before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2144.04 IV. A. and B.; VI. A. and C.
Regarding Claim 8: Son modified supra fails to teach wherein, in an ice-making position, the upper rib surrounds the lower rib.
Therefore, since the general condition of the claim is disclosed by the prior art reference, it is not inventive to change wherein, in an ice-making position, the upper rib surrounds the lower rib of the structure. 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, in an ice-making position, the upper rib surrounds the lower rib to the structure of Son modified supra in order to advantageously provide varying shape/configurations of the ice tray assembly components. Furthermore, absent evidence of criticality, change in shape or rearrangement of parts is merely design choice and would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art would before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2144.04 IV A. and B; VI. A. and C.
Regarding Claim 9: Son modified supra teaches wherein the mounting face (upper rim 2 of 15 of Bauerlein) includes: a third surface on which the lower rib (1 of Bauerlein) is formed (see Figure 2 of Bauerlein), and a fourth surface on which no lower rib is formed (upper slant of 2 has no rib 1 of Bauerlein) and which is configured to come into contact with the second surface of the bottom face of the upper tray (see lip of 12 of Bauerlein applied to 11 of Son).
Regarding Claim 10: Son teaches a refrigerator (paragraph [0002]) comprising: a cabinet (paragraph [0014]) defining a refrigerating compartment (paragraph [0014]) and a freezing compartment (paragraph [0014]); and an ice maker (paragraph [0014]) provided in the freezing compartment (paragraph [0016]), wherein the ice maker (10) includes: an upper tray (11) defining an upper chamber (cells 113), a lower tray (12) defining a lower chamber (cells 141) configured to define an ice chamber (113 and 141) together with the upper chamber (cells 113) based on the lower tray (12) being rotated to come into contact with the upper tray (paragraph [0072]), and a driver (paragraph [0072]) configured to pivot the lower tray (12) to open and close the upper tray (11) and the lower tray (12, paragraph [0072]), wherein the lower tray (12) includes a mounting face (see Figure 3) onto which the upper tray is seated (see Figure 3).
Son fails to teach the upper tray made of an elastic material, the lower tray made of an elastic material, and wherein the mounting face includes (i) a first surface on which a lower rib is formed and (ii) a second surface on which no lower rib is formed, wherein the first surface and the second surface are disposed so as not to overlap with each other along a circumference of the mounting face, and wherein the second surface is positioned closer to a pivoting shaft of the lower tray than the first surface.
Campbell teaches a tray (20) made of elastic material (Column 1, lines 32-41).
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 the upper tray made of an elastic material, the lower tray made of an elastic material to the structure of Son as taught by Campbell in order to advantageously provide using a material that can allow for the tray to flex for ice removal (see Campbell, Column 1, lines 32-41).
Bauerlein teaches a mounting face (2) includes (i) a first surface on which a rib (!) is formed and (ii) a second surface on which no rib is formed (see slant of 2, edge with no rib 1), wherein the first surface (see Figure 2) and the second surface (see Figure 2) are disposed so as not to overlap with each other along a circumference of the mounting face (see 2 in Figure 2), and wherein the second surface is positioned closer to a pivoting shaft (51 and 20) of the tray (15) than the first surface (see Figure 2).
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 mounting face includes (i) a first surface on which a lower rib is formed and (ii) a second surface on which no lower rib is formed, wherein the first surface and the second surface are disposed so as not to overlap with each other along a circumference of the mounting face, and wherein the second surface is positioned closer to a pivoting shaft of the lower tray than the first surface to the structure of Son modified supra as taught by Bauerlein in order to advantageously provide assistance in flexing the mold for ice release (see Column 4, lines 14-24 and Column 5, lines 60-66 of Bauerlein).
Regarding Claim 11: Son modified supra fails to teach wherein an area of the first surface is greater than an area of the second surface.
Therefore, since the general condition of the claim is disclosed by the prior art reference, it is not inventive to change surfaces areas of the structure. 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 an area of the first surface is greater than an area of the second surface to the structure of Son modified supra in order to advantageously provide varying shape of the ice tray assembly components. Furthermore, absent evidence of criticality, change in shape is merely design choice and would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art would before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2144.04 IV A. and B.
Regarding Claim 12: Son modified supra teaches wherein, at an ice-making position (see Figure 8 of Son) in which the upper chamber (113 of Son) and the lower chamber (141 of Son) are joined together to form the ice chamber (see Figure 8 of Son): the upper tray (11 of Son) includes a bottom face facing the mounting face (see Figure 2 of Bauerlein), the lower rib (1 of Bauerlein) is in contact with the bottom face of the upper tray (upper slant of 2 see rib 1 of Bauerlein, applied to 11 of Son), so that at least a portion of the first surface is spaced apart from the bottom face of the upper tray (see Figure 2 of Bauerlein), and the second surface is in contact with the bottom face of the upper tray (see lip of 12 of Bauerlein applied to 11 of Son).
Regarding Claim 13: Son modified supra teaches wherein the lower rib (1 of Bauerlein) is inclined along a circumference of the lower chamber (see Figure 2 of Bauerlein).
Regarding Claim 14: Son modified supra fails to teach further comprising: an upper rib protruding from the bottom face of the upper tray.
Bauerlein teaches a rib (1) protruding from a face (2) of a tray (15).
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 an upper rib protruding from the bottom face of the upper tray to the structure of Son modified supra as taught by Bauerlein in order to advantageously provide assistance in flexing the mold for ice release (see Column 4, lines 14-24 and Column 5, lines 60-66 of Bauerlein).
Therefore, since the general condition of the claim is disclosed by the prior art reference, it is not inventive to change wherein an upper rib protruding from the bottom face of the upper tray of the structure. 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 an upper rib protruding from the bottom face of the upper tray to the structure of Son modified supra in order to advantageously provide varying shape/configurations of the ice tray assembly components. Furthermore, absent evidence of criticality, change in shape or rearrangement of parts is merely design choice and would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art would before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2144.04 IV A. and B; VI. A. and C.
Regarding Claim 15: Son teaches wherein the lower tray (12) further includes a side wall (13) extending upwardly from the mounting face (see Figure 6), and wherein the side wall (13) surrounds the upper tray (cells 113 of 11) in the ice-making position (see Figure 8).
Regarding Claim 16: Son teaches wherein at least a portion of the side wall (13) is spaced apart from an outer peripheral surface of the upper tray (curve of 13 around 113 outer edge see Figure 8).
Regarding Claim 17: Son teaches an ice maker (10) comprising: an upper tray (11) defining an upper chamber (cells 113); a lower tray (12) defining a lower chamber (141) configured to define an ice chamber (113 and 141) together with the upper chamber (113) based on the lower tray (12) being rotated to come into contact with the upper tray (11); and a driver (paragraph [0072]) configured to pivot the lower tray to open and close the upper tray and the lower tray (paragraph [0072]), wherein the lower tray (12) includes a mounting face (see Figure 3) onto which the upper tray (11) is seated (see Figure 8), wherein a bottom face of the upper tray, which faces the mounting face (see Figure 3 and 8).
Son fails to teach the upper tray made of an elastic material and the lower tray made of an elastic material; and wherein a bottom face of the upper tray, which faces the mounting face, includes a first surface on which an upper rib is formed, and a second surface on which no upper rib is formed, wherein the first surface and the second surface are disposed so as not to overlap with each other along a circumference of the bottom face, and wherein the second surface is positioned closer to a pivoting shaft of the lower tray than the first surface.
Campbell teaches a tray (20) made of elastic material (Column 1, lines 32-41).
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 the upper tray made of an elastic material and the lower tray made of an elastic material to the structure of Son as taught by Campbell in order to advantageously provide using a material that can allow for the tray to flex for ice removal (see Campbell, Column 1, lines 32-41).
Bauerlein teaches a face of a tray (15, see Figure 2), which faces a mounting face (lip 2 in Figure 2), includes a first surface on which an rib (1) is formed, and a second surface on which no rib (1) is formed, wherein the first surface and the second surface are disposed so as not to overlap with each other along a circumference of the face (see slant of 2, edge with no rib 1), and wherein the second surface is positioned closer to a pivoting shaft (51 and 20) of the tray (15) than the first surface (see Figure 2).
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 bottom face of the upper tray, which faces the mounting face, includes a first surface on which an upper rib is formed, and a second surface on which no upper rib is formed, wherein the first surface and the second surface are disposed so as not to overlap with each other along a circumference of the bottom face, and wherein the second surface is positioned closer to a pivoting shaft of the lower tray than the first surface to the structure of Son modified supra as taught by Bauerlein in order to advantageously provide assistance in flexing the mold for ice release (see Column 4, lines 14-24 and Column 5, lines 60-66 of Bauerlein).
Regarding Claim 18: Son modified supra fails to teach wherein an area of the first surface is greater than an area of the second surface.
Therefore, since the general condition of the claim is disclosed by the prior art reference, it is not inventive to change surfaces areas of the structure. 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 an area of the first surface is greater than an area of the second surface to the structure of Son modified supra in order to advantageously provide varying shape of the ice tray assembly components. Furthermore, absent evidence of criticality, change in shape is merely design choice and would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art would before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2144.04 IV A. and B.
Regarding Claim 19: Son modified supra further teaches wherein, in an ice-making position (see Figure 8 of Son): the upper rib (1 of Bauerlein applied to 11 of Son) is in contact with the mounting face (upper rim of 11 of Son), so that at least a portion of the first surface is spaced apart from the mounting face (see Figure 2 of Bauerlein), and the second surface is in contact with the mounting face (see Figure 2 of Bauerlein).
Regarding Claim 20: Son modified supra fails to teach wherein the upper rib is inclined along a circumference of the upper chamber.
Therefore, since the general condition of the claim is disclosed by the prior art reference, it is not inventive to change inclinations of the rib of the structure. 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 upper rib is inclined along a circumference of the upper chamber to the structure of Son modified supra in order to advantageously provide varying shape of the ice tray assembly components. Furthermore, absent evidence of criticality, change in shape is merely design choice and would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art would before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2144.04 IV A. and B.
Regarding Claim 21: Son modified supra fails to teach further comprising: a lower rib protruding from the mounting face of the lower tray.
Bauerlein teaches a lower rib (1) protruding from a mounting face (2) of a lower tray (15).
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 lower rib protruding from the mounting face of the lower tray to the structure of Son modified supra as taught by Bauerlein in order to advantageously provide assistance in flexing the mold for ice release (see Column 4, lines 14-24 and Column 5, lines 60-66 of Bauerlein).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Brandt et al. (3,721,103).
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
Prosecution Insights