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 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 9 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “ice pieces” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For examination purposes, the phrase “into ice pieces” will be interpreted as -- into ice the pieces --
Claim 14 recites the limitations “…food items…” and “…food items…” which render the claim indefinite because the claim as written leave the structure ambiguous in nature as it become difficult to tell if the claim is referencing a previously claimed element or disclosing an element in addition to the previously claimed element.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “a predetermined angular range” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For examination purposes, the phrase “a predetermined angular range” will be interpreted as -- the predetermined angular range --
Claims 15-17 and 19-20 are also rejected due to dependency.
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, 3-7, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lippincott (US 2968168), in view of Ito et al. (JP2005326035A, herein after referred to as Ito), and in further view of Kawasaki et al. (JP2006046749A, herein after referred to as Kawasaki).
Regarding claim 1, Lippincott teaches an ice maker (ice tray or mold unit 15 and ice block harvesting basket 16 Fig. 1) for freezing water (Col. 2 lines 68-72) into ice pieces (ice block B Fig. 2), the ice maker comprising: an elongated cage (mold unit 15 Fig. 2) configured to revolve about a central revolving axis (tube 31 Fig. 2), the elongated cage having a first end (end wall 24 Fig. 2) and an opposite second end (end wall 25 Fig. 2), and a first elongated slot (row 21 Figs. 1-2) and a second elongated slot (row 22 Figs. 1-2) each extending between the first end and the second end (Fig. 2); a motor (motor and control unit 32 Fig. 2) coupled to the elongated cage for revolving the elongated cage about the central revolving axis (Fig. 2 and Col. 2 lines 24-31); an ejector bar (bar 42” Fig. 3), wherein the ejector bar is offset from the central revolving axis (Fig. 3); a first ice tray (cups 21A-21E Fig. 2) configured to be received in the first elongated slot (Fig. 2) and a second ice tray (cups 22A-22E Fig. 2) configured to be received in the second elongated slot (Fig. 2).
Lippincott teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach “the ejector bar extending through an inner elongated cavity of the elongated cage”.
However, Ito teaches an ejector bar (excentric shaft 6 Figs. 5-6 corresponds to the ejector bar of Lippincott) extending through an inner elongated cavity of an elongated cage (Fig. 5 where rotating housing 13 corresponds to the elongated cage of Lippincott) to provide an ice maker where the ice made in the ice tray can be easily removed (paragraph [0008]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of Lippincott to include “the ejector bar extending through an inner elongated cavity of the elongated cage” in view of the teachings of Ito to provide an ice maker where the ice made in the ice tray can be easily removed.
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein the elongated cage is disposed in a frame and positioned between an outlet plate of the frame and an air duct, the air duct is positioned adjacent the first end of the elongated cage and the outlet plate positioned adjacent the second end of the elongated cage, wherein the outlet plate includes a first opening and a second opening that are in fluid communication with the air duct via an air path that extends from the air duct, through the elongated cage, and towards the outlet plate of the frame, and wherein the first opening is configured to allow one of the first ice tray and the second ice tray to be removed from the elongated cage therethrough”.
However, Kawasaki teaches wherein an elongated cage (holding body 46 Fig. 5 corresponds to the elongated cage of Lippincott) is disposed in a frame (frame 44 Fig. 4) and positioned between an outlet plate of the frame (front plate of frame 44 Fig. 4) and an air duct (cold air duct 44c Figs. 3-4), the air duct is positioned adjacent a first end of the elongated cage (Figs. 3-4 where the end provided with rotatable shaft portion 39b corresponds to the first end of Lippincott) and the outlet plate positioned adjacent a second end of the elongated cage (Figs. 3-4 where the end provided with rotatable shaft portion 39a corresponds to the second end of Lippincott), wherein the outlet plate includes a first opening (corresponds to the large opening of the front plate of frame 44 Fig. 4) and a second opening (corresponds to any of the cool air outlet holes 49 provided on the front plate of frame 44 Fig. 8) that are in fluid communication with the air duct via an air path (corresponds to the air path illustrated in Fig. 3) that extends from the air duct, through the elongated cage, and towards the outlet plate of the frame (Fig. 3 and paragraphs [0034] to [0036]), and wherein the first opening is configured to allow the first ice tray to be removed from the elongated cage therethrough (Fig. 4 and paragraph [0028]) to provide a cover for the elongated cage (paragraph [0027]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “wherein the elongated cage is disposed in a frame and positioned between an outlet plate of the frame and an air duct, the air duct is positioned adjacent the first end of the elongated cage and the outlet plate positioned adjacent the second end of the elongated cage, wherein the outlet plate includes a first opening and a second opening that are in fluid communication with the air duct via an air path that extends from the air duct, through the elongated cage, and towards the outlet plate of the frame, and wherein the first opening is configured to allow one of the first ice tray and the second ice tray to be removed from the elongated cage therethrough” in view of the teachings of Kawasaki to provide a cover for the elongated cage.
Furthermore, it is understood, claim 1 includes an intended use recitation, for example “…configured to...”. The Applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner which a claimed apparatus is intended to be does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, the claims are directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
Regarding claim 3, the combined teachings teach wherein the outlet plate further includes a third opening (corresponds to any of the cool air outlet holes 49 provided on the front plate of frame 44 Fig. 8 of Kawasaki), and each of the second and third openings are smaller than the first opening (Figs. 4 and 8 of Kawasaki).
Regarding claim 4, the combined teachings teach wherein the elongated cage includes a third elongated slot (row 23 Figs. 1-2 of Lippincott), wherein the first, second, and third elongated slots are angularly spaced around the central revolving axis of the elongated cage (Figs. 1-2 of Lippincott) and each slot is configured to receive a respective ice tray (cups 21A-21E, cups 22A-22E, and cups 23A-23E Fig. 2 of Lippincott).
Furthermore, it is understood, claim 4 includes an intended use recitation, for example “…configured to...”. The Applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner which a claimed apparatus is intended to be does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, the claims are directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
Regarding claim 5, the combined teachings teach wherein the first ice tray and the second ice tray each include a plurality of cavities (cups 21A-21E and cups 22A-22E Fig. 2 of Lippincott) for receiving the water to be frozen into the ice pieces (Col. 2 lines 68-72 of Lippincott), the cavities each having a lower portion (Fig. 3 of Lippincott).
Regarding claim 6, the combined teachings teach wherein the lower portions of the plurality of cavities in the first ice tray (Fig. 6 of Ito where bottom portions 2-1 correspond to the lower portions of the plurality of cavities in the first ice tray of Lippincott) or the second ice tray (Fig. 6 of Ito where bottom portions 2-1A correspond to the lower portions of the plurality of cavities in the second ice tray of Lippincott) directly engage the ejector bar and are deformed by the ejector bar (Fig. 6 of Ito) as the respective ice tray is revolved through a predetermined angular range (Figs. 5-6 of Ito where the first and second trays are rotated from zero to 180 degrees in order to engage the bar and remove the ice).
Regarding claim 7, the combined teachings teach wherein during revolving of the first ice tray or the second ice tray through the predetermined angular range, the ice pieces in the respective ice tray are ejected from the respective ice tray (Fig. 6 of Ito).
Regarding claim 12, the combined teachings teach wherein the lower portions of the plurality of cavities of the first ice tray and the second ice tray are made of a resilient material (disclosed “silicone rubber material” in paragraph [0015] of Ito).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lippincott, Ito, and Kawasaki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Voglewede et al. (US 20060086134 A1, herein after referred to as Voglewede).
Regarding claim 2, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein the outlet plate remains stationary while the elongated cage is revolved”.
However, Voglewede teaches wherein an outlet plate (end wall 44 Fig. 2 corresponds to the outlet plate of Lim) remains stationary (Fig. 7) while an elongated cage is revolved (Fig. 7 where frame 120 corresponds to the elongate cage of Lippincott) to mount all elements of the ice maker (paragraph [0032]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “wherein the outlet plate remains stationary while the elongated cage is revolved” in view of the teachings of Voglewede to mount all elements of the ice maker.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lippincott, Ito, and Kawasaki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tadashi (JP2013234811A).
Regarding claim 8, the combined teachings teach wherein a controller (motor and control unit 32 Fig. 2 of Lippincott) is connected to the motor for controlling the revolving of the elongated cage about the central revolving axis (Fig. 2 and Col. 2 lines 29-31 of Lippincott), the controller being configured to selectively position the first ice tray or the second ice tray in a first angular position (the position of cup 21D illustrated in Fig. 4 of Lippincott) such that each of the respective ice tray is positioned below a water fill port (spigot 17 Fig. 1 and Col. 2 lines 1-10 of Lippincott).
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “the controller being configured to selectively position the first ice tray or the second ice tray such that each of the plurality of cavities of the respective ice tray is positioned below a respective water fill port”.
However, Tadashi teaches a controller (control board 34 Fig. 2 corresponds to the controller of Lippincott) being configured to selectively position a first ice tray (Fig. 8 where first ice making unit 48 corresponds to the first ice tray of Lippincott) or a second ice tray (Fig. 8 where second ice making unit 49 corresponds to the second ice tray of Lippincott) such that each of a plurality of cavities (the disclosed “plurality of ice making compartments” in paragraph [0032] corresponds to the plurality of cavities of Lippincott) of the respective ice tray is positioned below a respective water fill port (water supply ports 54 Fig. 6) to enable individual water supply to each cavity (paragraph [0033]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “the controller being configured to selectively position the first ice tray or the second ice tray such that each of the plurality of cavities of the respective ice tray is positioned below a respective water fill port” in view of the teachings of Tadashi to enable individual water supply to each cavity.
Regarding claim 9, the combined teachings teach wherein the air path is configured to convey air from the air duct to the outlet plate to freeze water within the first ice tray into ice the pieces (paragraph [0034] and Fig. 3 of Kawasaki).
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “convey air from the air duct to the outlet plate to freeze water within the first and second ice trays into ice the pieces”.
However, Tadashi teaches convey air from an air duct (paragraph [0033] and Fig. 3 where ice making duct 56 corresponds to the air duct of Kawasaki) to an outlet plate (Fig. 5 where the front plate of housing 43 corresponds to the outlet plate of Kawasaki) to freeze water within a first (first ice making unit 48 Fig. 8 corresponds to the first ice tray of Lippincott) and second ice trays (second ice making unit 49 Fig. 8 corresponds to the second ice tray of Lippincott) into ice pieces (paragraph [0043]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “convey air from the air duct to the outlet plate to freeze water within the first and second ice trays into ice the pieces” in view of the teachings of Tadashi to improve the freezing process of the water for a plurality of ice trays.
Claims 10-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lippincott, Ito, and Kawasaki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Inoguchi et al. (JP2013015245A, herein after referred to as Inoguchi).
Regarding claim 10, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein when the first ice tray is in a first position, the first ice tray is aligned with the first opening and the first ice tray is removable from the ice maker through the first opening”.
However, Inoguchi teaches wherein when a first ice tray (ice tray 1 Fig. 5 corresponds to the first ice tray of Lippincott) is in a first position (corresponds to the position of ice tray 1 illustrated in Fig. 5), the first ice tray is aligned with a first opening (Fig. 5 where the front opening of frame 10 corresponds to the first opening of Kawasaki) and the first ice tray is removable from an ice maker (ice making apparatus 310 Fig. 2 corresponds to the ice maker of Lippincott) through the first opening (paragraph [0034]) to allow for a user to remove the ice tray (paragraph [0034]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “wherein when the first ice tray is in a first position, the first ice tray is aligned with the first opening and the first ice tray is removable from the ice maker through the first opening” in view of the teachings of Inoguchi to allow for a user to remove the ice tray.
Regarding claim 11, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein when the second ice tray is in a first position, the second ice tray is aligned with the first opening and the second ice tray is removable from the ice maker through the first opening”.
However, Inoguchi teaches wherein when a second ice tray (ice tray 1 Fig. 5 corresponds to the second ice tray of Lippincott) is in a first position (corresponds to the position of ice tray 1 illustrated in Fig. 5), the second ice tray is aligned with a first opening (Fig. 5 where the front opening of frame 10 corresponds to the first opening of Kawasaki) and the second ice tray is removable from an ice maker (ice making apparatus 310 Fig. 2 corresponds to the ice maker of Lippincott) through the first opening (paragraph [0034]) to allow for a user to remove the ice tray (paragraph [0034]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “wherein when the second ice tray is in a first position, the second ice tray is aligned with the first opening and the second ice tray is removable from the ice maker through the first opening” in view of the teachings of Inoguchi to allow for a user to remove the ice tray.
Regarding claim 13, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein each ice tray includes a pair of rails extending along its length”.
However, Inoguchi teaches wherein each ice tray (ice tray 1 Fig. 5) includes a pair of rails (paragraph [0033]) extending along its length (paragraph [0033]) to allow for the ice tray to be pulled out or pushed in the depth direction (paragraph [0033]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “wherein each ice tray includes a pair of rails extending along its length” in view of the teachings of Inoguchi to allow for the ice tray to be pulled out or pushed in the depth direction.
Claims 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lippincott, in view of Kim et al. (us 20100319366 A1, herein after referred to as Kim), in view of Ito, and in further view of Kawasaki.
Regarding claim 14, Lippincott teaches a refrigeration appliance (refrigerator 12 Fig. 1) comprising: a freezer compartment (freezing compartment 10 Fig. 1); a system evaporator (evaporator 11 Fig. 1) for providing a cooling effect (Col. 2 lines 68-72) to at least the freezer compartment (Col. 2 lines 68-72); and an ice maker (ice tray or mold unit 15 and ice block harvesting basket 16 Fig. 1) for freezing water into ice pieces (ice block B Fig. 2), the ice maker comprising: an elongated cage (mold unit 15 Fig. 2) configured to revolve about a central revolving axis (tube 31 Fig. 2), the elongated cage having a first end (end wall 24 Fig. 2) and a second end (end wall 25 Fig. 2), and a first elongated slot (row 21 Figs. 1-2) and a second elongated slot (row 22 Figs. 1-2) extending between the first end and the second end (Fig. 2), a motor (motor and control unit 32 Fig. 2) coupled to the elongated cage for revolving the elongated cage about the central revolving axis (Fig. 2 and Col. 2 lines 24-31); an ejector bar (bar 42” Fig. 3), wherein the ejector bar is offset from the central revolving axis (Fig. 3); a first ice tray (cups 21A-21E Fig. 2) configured to be received in the first elongated slot (Fig. 2) and a second ice tray (cups 22A-22E Fig. 2) configured to be received in the second elongated slot (Fig. 2).
Lippincott teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach “the refrigeration appliance comprising: a fresh food compartment for storing food items in a refrigerated environment having a target temperature above 0º C; the freezer compartment for storing food items in a sub-freezing environment having a target temperature below 0º C; the ice maker disposed within the fresh food compartment”.
However, Kim teaches a refrigeration appliance (refrigerator body 1 Fig. 1 corresponds to the refrigerator of Lippincott) comprising: a fresh food compartment (refrigerating chamber 3 Fig. 1) for storing food items (paragraph [0033]) in a refrigerated environment (paragraph [0033]) having a target temperature above 0º C (paragraph [0033]); a freezer compartment (freezing chamber 2 Fig. 1 corresponds to the freezer compartment of Lippincott) for storing food items (paragraph [0033]) in a sub-freezing environment (paragraph [0033]) having a target temperature below 0º C (paragraph [0033]); an ice maker (ice maker 100 Fig. 1 corresponds to the ice maker of Lippincott) disposed within the fresh food compartment (Fig. 1) to provide a refrigerator that can store food items at different temperatures (paragraph [0033]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of Lippincott to include “the refrigeration appliance comprising: a fresh food compartment for storing food items in a refrigerated environment having a target temperature above 0º C; the freezer compartment for storing food items in a sub-freezing environment having a target temperature below 0º C; the ice maker disposed within the fresh food compartment” in view of the teachings of Kim to provide a refrigerator that can store food items at different temperatures.
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “the ejector bar extending through an inner elongated cavity of the elongated cage”.
However, Ito teaches an ejector bar (excentric shaft 6 Figs. 5-6 corresponds to the ejector bar of Lippincott) extending through an inner elongated cavity of an elongated cage (Fig. 5 where rotating housing 13 corresponds to the elongated cage of Lippincott) to provide an ice maker where the ice made in the ice tray can be easily removed (paragraph [0008]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “the ejector bar extending through an inner elongated cavity of the elongated cage” in view of the teachings of Ito to provide an ice maker where the ice made in the ice tray can be easily removed.
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein the elongated cage is disposed in a frame and positioned between an outlet plate of the frame and an air duct, wherein an air path extends from the air duct, through the elongated cage, and to the outlet plate of the frame, wherein the outlet plate includes a first opening and a second opening, wherein the first opening is configured to allow one of the first ice tray and the second ice tray to be removed from the elongated cage therethrough”.
However, Kawasaki teaches wherein an elongated cage (holding body 46 Fig. 5 corresponds to the elongated cage of Lippincott) is disposed in a frame (frame 44 Fig. 4) and positioned between an outlet plate of the frame (front plate of frame 44 Fig. 4) and an air duct (cold air duct 44c Figs. 3-4), wherein an air path (corresponds to the air path illustrated in Fig. 3) extends from the air duct, through the elongated cage, and to the outlet plate of the frame (Fig. 3 and paragraphs [0034] to [0036]), wherein the outlet plate includes a first opening (corresponds to the large opening of the front plate of frame 44 Fig. 4) and a second opening (corresponds to any of the cool air outlet holes 49 provided on the front plate of frame 44 Fig. 8), wherein the first opening is configured to allow the first ice tray to be removed from the elongated cage therethrough (Fig. 4 and paragraph [0028]) to provide a cover for the elongated cage (paragraph [0027]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “wherein the elongated cage is disposed in a frame and positioned between an outlet plate of the frame and an air duct, wherein an air path extends from the air duct, through the elongated cage, and to the outlet plate of the frame, wherein the outlet plate includes a first opening and a second opening, wherein the first opening is configured to allow one of the first ice tray and the second ice tray to be removed from the elongated cage therethrough” in view of the teachings of Kawasaki to provide a cover for the elongated cage.
Furthermore, it is understood, claim 14 includes an intended use recitation, for example “…configured to...”. The Applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner which a claimed apparatus is intended to be does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, the claims are directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
Regarding claim 15, the combined teachings teach wherein the elongated cage includes a third elongated slot (row 23 Figs. 1-2 of Lippincott), wherein the first, second, and third elongated slots are angularly spaced around the central revolving axis of the elongated cage (Figs. 1-2 of Lippincott) and each slot is configured to receive a respective ice tray (cups 21A-21E, cups 22A-22E, and cups 23A-23E Fig. 2 of Lippincott).
Furthermore, it is understood, claim 14 includes an intended use recitation, for example “…configured to...”. The Applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner which a claimed apparatus is intended to be does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, the claims are directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
Regarding claim 16, the combined teachings teach wherein the first ice tray and the second ice tray each include a plurality of cavities (cups 21A-21E and cups 22A-22E Fig. 2 of Lippincott) for receiving the water to be frozen into the ice pieces (Col. 2 lines 68-72 of Lippincott), the cavities each having a lower portion (Fig. 3 of Lippincott).
Regarding claim 17, the combined teachings teach wherein the lower portions of the plurality of cavities in the first ice tray (Fig. 6 of Ito where bottom portions 2-1 correspond to the lower portions of the plurality of cavities in the first ice tray of Lippincott) or the second ice tray (Fig. 6 of Ito where bottom portions 2-1A correspond to the lower portions of the plurality of cavities in the second ice tray of Lippincott) directly engage the ejector bar and are deformed by the ejector bar (Fig. 6 of Ito) as the respective ice tray is revolved through a predetermined angular range (Figs. 5-6 of Ito where the first and second trays are rotated from zero to 180 degrees in order to engage the bar and remove the ice).
Regarding claim 18, the combined teachings teach wherein during revolving of the first ice tray or the second ice tray through the predetermined angular range, the ice pieces in the respective ice tray are ejected from the respective ice tray (Fig. 6 of Ito).
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lippincott, Kim, Ito, and Kawasaki as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Inoguchi.
Regarding claim 19, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein when the first ice tray is in a first position, the first ice tray is aligned with the first opening and the first ice tray is removable from the ice maker”.
However, Inoguchi teaches wherein when a first ice tray (ice tray 1 Fig. 5 corresponds to the first ice tray of Lippincott) is in a first position (corresponds to the position of ice tray 1 illustrated in Fig. 5), the first ice tray is aligned with a first opening (Fig. 5 where the front opening of frame 10 corresponds to the first opening of Kawasaki) and the first ice tray is removable from an ice maker (paragraph [0034] and Fig. 2 where ice making apparatus 310 corresponds to the ice maker of Lippincott) to allow for a user to remove the ice tray (paragraph [0034]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “wherein when the first ice tray is in a first position, the first ice tray is aligned with the first opening and the first ice tray is removable from the ice maker” in view of the teachings of Inoguchi to allow for a user to remove the ice tray.
Regarding claim 20, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein when the second ice tray is in a first position, the second ice tray is aligned with the first opening and the second ice tray is removable from the ice maker”.
However, Inoguchi teaches wherein when a second ice tray (ice tray 1 Fig. 5 corresponds to the second ice tray of Lippincott) is in a first position (corresponds to the position of ice tray 1 illustrated in Fig. 5), the second ice tray is aligned with a first opening (Fig. 5 where the front opening of frame 10 corresponds to the first opening of Kawasaki) and the second ice tray is removable from an ice maker (paragraph [0034] and Fig. 2 where ice making apparatus 310 corresponds to the ice maker of Lippincott) to allow for a user to remove the ice tray (paragraph [0034]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “wherein when the second ice tray is in a first position, the second ice tray is aligned with the first opening and the second ice tray is removable from the ice maker” in view of the teachings of Inoguchi to allow for a user to remove the ice tray.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMBA NMN GAYE whose telephone number is (571)272-8809. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 4:30AM to 2:30PM.
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.
/SAMBA NMN GAYE/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights