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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the phrase “Air flows from the freezer compartment to the first ice maker” in line 7 which is understood to be a typographical error and will be interpreted as -- Air flows from the freezer compartment to the second ice maker --
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 16, the phrases “wherein the first plurality of slots define a first cross-sectional area, and wherein the second plurality of slots define a second cross-sectional area” are grammatically incorrect and for examination purposes will be interpreted as -- wherein the first plurality of slots defines a first cross-sectional area, and wherein the second plurality of slots defines a second cross-sectional area --
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-11 and 14 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “a second ice maker coupled with the door, wherein air flows from the evaporator to the freezer compartment to the first ice maker” which renders the claim indefinite. As recited, the claim is confusing because it is not entirely clear how the disclosed flow arrangement would provide cooling to the second ice maker. More clarity is requested.
For examination purposes, the phrase “a second ice maker coupled with the door, wherein air flows from the evaporator to the freezer compartment to the first ice maker” will be interpreted as -- a second ice maker coupled with the door, wherein air flows from the evaporator to the freezer compartment to the second ice maker --
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “wherein the second flow of air is less than the first flow of air” which renders the claim indefinite. As recited, the claim is confusing as it is not entirely clear how the second airflow is “less” than the first airflow. More clarity is requested.
Regarding claims 3 and 14, the term “about” is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claims, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. This term renders claims 33 and 14 indefinite because it is unclear what “wherein the second flow of air is about 0% of the first flow of air” is. Thus, as used to qualify the second flow of air relative to the first flow of air, this term renders the same indeterminate and the claims (and all claims depending therefrom) indefinite with regard to the scope of protection sought thereby.
Furthermore, it is unclear how the second flow of air is zero when the second inlet is provided with a plurality of slots. More clarity is requested.
Claims 2 and 4-11 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 5, 8-9, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyunbum et al. (KR20240085565A, herein after referred to as Hyunbum) in view of Park et al. (EP4361536A1, herein after referred to as Park).
Regarding claim 1, Hyunbum teaches a refrigerator appliance (refrigerator 1 Fig. 1) defining a vertical direction (corresponds to the height direction of refrigerator 1 Fig. 1), a lateral direction (corresponds to the width direction of refrigerator 1 Fig. 1), and a transverse direction (corresponds to the depth direction of refrigerator 1 Fig. 1), the refrigerator appliance comprising: a cabinet (cabinet 14 Fig. 2a) forming a fresh food compartment (refrigerator room 18 Fig. 2a) and a freezer compartment (freezer room 19 Fig. 2a); a door (freezer door 30 Fig. 1) coupled with the cabinet (Fig. 1), wherein the door at least partially defines the freezer compartment (Figs. 1 and 2a); an evaporator (corresponds to the disclosed “cooler” in paragraph [0007]) fluidly coupled with the freezer compartment (paragraph [0007]); a first ice maker (first ice maker 200 Fig. 2b) coupled with the door (paragraph [0045]), wherein air (paragraph [0007]) flows from the evaporator to the freezer compartment to the first ice maker (paragraph [0007]), wherein the first ice maker defines a first inlet (cold air hole 219 Fig. 4) that allows for a first flow of air (corresponds to the disclosed “cold air” guided through cold air hole 219 as described in paragraph [0060]) into the first ice maker (paragraph [0060]), and wherein the first ice maker is configured to produce a first style of ice (paragraphs [0049] and [0051]); and a second ice maker (second ice maker 200a Fig. 2b) coupled with the door (paragraph [0045]), wherein air (paragraph [0007]) flows from the evaporator to the freezer compartment to the second ice maker (paragraph [0007]), wherein the second ice maker defines a second inlet (referring to paragraph [0052], a person skilled in the art would recognize that second ice maker 200a could also be provided with its own cold air hole 219 since it is disclosed that the structure of second ice maker 200a may be the same as the structure of first ice maker 200) that allows for a second flow of air (would correspond to the disclosed “cold air” that would be guided through cold air hole 219 of second ice maker 200a as described in paragraph [0060]) into the second ice maker (paragraph [0060]), and wherein the second ice maker is configured to produce a second style of ice (paragraphs [0049] and [0051]) different from the first style of ice (paragraphs [0049] and [0051]).
Hyunbum teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach “wherein the second flow of air is less than the first flow of air”.
However, Park teaches wherein a second flow of air (the cold air flowing out of second upper ice cold air discharge hole 2431 Fig. 6 corresponds to the second flow of air of Hyunbum) is less (referring to Fig. 6, a person skilled in the art would recognize that the amount of cold air flowing out of second upper ice cold air discharge hole 2431 is less than the amount of cold air flowing out of second lower ice cold air discharge hole 2432 since second upper ice cold air discharge hole 2431 has a smaller cross sectional area) than a first flow of air (Fig. 6 where the cold air flowing out of second lower ice cold air discharge hole 2432 corresponds to the first flow of air of Hyunbum) to directly supply cold air to the first and second ice makers (paragraph [0101]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of Hyunbum to include “wherein the second flow of air is less than the first flow of air” in view of the teachings of Park to directly supply cold air to the first and second ice makers.
Regarding claim 12, Hyunbum teaches an ice making assembly (first ice maker 200 and second ice maker 200a Fig. 2b) integrated with a door (freezer door 30 Fig. 1 and paragraph [0045]) of an appliance (refrigerator 1 Fig. 1), wherein the appliance comprises a cabinet (cabinet 14 Fig. 2a) that forms a freezer compartment (freezer room 19 Fig. 2a) with the door that is selectively closed (Figs. 1 and 2a), the ice making assembly comprising: a first ice maker (first ice maker 200 Fig. 2b) coupled with the door (paragraph [0045]), wherein chilled air (paragraph [0007]) is delivered to the first ice maker from the freezer compartment (paragraph [0007]), wherein the first ice maker defines a first inlet (cold air hole 219 Fig. 4) that allows for a first flow of air (corresponds to the disclosed “cold air” guided through cold air hole 219 as described in paragraph [0060]) into the first ice maker (paragraph [0060]), and wherein the first ice maker is configured to make a first style of ice (paragraphs [0049] and [0051]); and a second ice maker (second ice maker 200a Fig. 2b) coupled with the door (paragraph [0045]), wherein chilled air (paragraph [0045]) is delivered to the second ice maker from the freezer compartment (paragraph [0045]), wherein the second ice maker defines a second inlet (referring to paragraph [0052], a person skilled in the art would recognize that second ice maker 200a could also be provided with its own cold air hole 219 since it is disclosed that the structure of second ice maker 200a may be the same as the structure of first ice maker 200) that allows for a second flow of air (would correspond to the disclosed “cold air” that would be guided through cold air hole 219 of second ice maker 200a as described in paragraph [0060]) into the second ice maker (paragraph [0060]), and wherein the second ice maker is configured to make a second style of ice (paragraphs [0049] and [0051]) different from the first style (paragraphs [0049] and [0051]).
Hyunbum teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach “wherein the second flow of air is less than the first flow of air”.
However, Park teaches wherein a second flow of air (the cold air flowing out of second upper ice cold air discharge hole 2431 Fig. 6 corresponds to the second flow of air of Hyunbum) is less (referring to Fig. 6, a person skilled in the art would recognize that the amount of cold air flowing out of second upper ice cold air discharge hole 2431 is less than the amount of cold air flowing out of second lower ice cold air discharge hole 2432 since second upper ice cold air discharge hole 2431 has a smaller cross sectional area) than a first flow of air (Fig. 6 where the cold air flowing out of second lower ice cold air discharge hole 2432 corresponds to the first flow of air of Hyunbum) to directly supply cold air to the first and second ice makers (paragraph [0101]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of Hyunbum to include “wherein the second flow of air is less than the first flow of air” in view of the teachings of Park to directly supply cold air to the first and second ice makers.
Regarding claim 5, the combined teachings teach wherein the first inlet has a first cross-sectional area (understood to be the cross-sectional area of second lower ice cold air discharge hole 2432 Fig. 3 of Park where second lower ice cold air discharge hole 2432 corresponds to the first inlet of Hyunbum), and wherein the second inlet has a second cross-sectional (understood to be the cross-sectional area of second upper ice cold air discharge hole 2431 Fig. 3 of Park where second upper ice cold air discharge hole 2431corresponds to the second inlet of Hyunbum) that is smaller than the first cross-sectional area (Fig. 3 of Park).
Regarding claims 8 and 19, the combined teachings teach further comprising: a dispenser (dispenser 11 Fig. 1 of Hyunbum) coupled with the first ice maker (paragraph [0048] of Hyunbum), wherein the first style of ice is transported from the first ice maker through the dispenser (paragraph [0048] of Hyunbum); and a bucket (second ice bean 300a Fig. 2b of Hyunbum) coupled with the second ice maker (Fig. 2a of Hyunbum), wherein the second style of ice is transported from the second ice maker to the bucket (paragraphs [0047] and [0048] of Hyunbum).
Regarding claim 9, the combined teachings teach wherein the dispenser is coupled with an outside surface of the door (Fig. 1 and paragraph [0043] of Hyunbum).
Claims 2-4, 6, and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyunbum in view of Park as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Jeon et al. (US 20210095910 A1, herein after referred to as Jeon).
Regarding claims 2 and 13, the combined teachings teach further comprising: a first cover (bracket 210 Fig. 4 of Hyunbum), wherein the first cover defines the first inlet (Fig. 4 of Hyunbum); and a second cover (referring to paragraph [0052] of Hyunbum, a person skilled in the art would recognize that second ice maker 200a could also be provided with its own bracket 210 since it is disclosed that the structure of second ice maker 200a may be the same as the structure of first ice maker 200), wherein the second cover defines the second inlet (Fig. 4 of Hyunbum).
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “the second cover coupled with the door proximate the second ice maker, wherein the second cover defines the second inlet via a second plurality of slots”.
However, Jeon teaches a second cover (ice cover 240 Fig. 5 corresponds to the second cover of Hyunbum) coupled with a door (Fig. 4 where freezing compartment door 31 corresponds to the door of Hyunbum) proximate a second ice maker (Fig. 4 where ice maker 300 corresponds to the second ice maker of Hyunbum), wherein the second cover defines a second inlet (Fig. 5 where the inlet of ice cover 240 corresponds to the second inlet of Hyunbum) via a second plurality of slots (cold air inlet slits 241 Fig. 5) to form the outer appearance of the ice maker when the door is opened (paragraph [0067]).
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 second cover coupled with the door proximate the second ice maker, wherein the second cover defines the second inlet via a second plurality of slots” in view of the teachings of Jeon to form the outer appearance of the ice maker when the door is opened.
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “the first cover coupled with the door proximate the first ice maker, wherein the first cover defines the first inlet via a first plurality of slots”.
However, Applicant has not disclosed that having “the first cover coupled with the door proximate the first ice maker, wherein the first cover defines the first inlet via a first plurality of slots” does anything more than produce the predictable result of providing a first cover that includes a plurality of slots to the first ice maker. Since it has been held that Duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, see MPEP 2144.04 VI. B, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings and meet the claimed limitations in order to produce the predictable results of providing a first cover that includes a plurality of slots to the first ice maker.
Regarding claim 3, and due to indefiniteness, the combined teachings teach wherein the first plurality of slots (Figs. 5-6 of Park where the plurality of slots defined by second lower ice cold air discharge hole 2432 corresponds to the first plurality of slots of Lee) allows the first flow of air into the first ice maker (Figs. 5-6 of Park where second ice maker 272 corresponds to the first ice maker of Hyunbum), wherein the second plurality of slots (Figs. 5-6 of Park where the plurality of slots defined by second upper ice cold air discharge hole 2431 corresponds to the second plurality of slots of Lee) allows the second flow of air into the second ice maker (Figs. 5-6 of Park where first ice maker 271 corresponds to the second ice maker of Hyunbum) from the evaporator (evaporator 250 Fig. 8 of Park corresponds to the evaporator of Hyunbum), and wherein the second flow of air is about 0% of the first flow of air (Figs. 5-6 of Park).
Regarding claims 4 and 15, the combined teachings teach wherein the first plurality of slots (Fig. 3 of Park where the plurality of slots defined by second lower ice cold air discharge hole 2432 corresponds to the first plurality of slots of Lee) is quantitatively greater than the second plurality of slots (Fig. 3 of Park where the plurality of slots defined by second upper ice cold air discharge hole 2431 corresponds to the second plurality of slots of Lee).
Regarding claims 6 and 17, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “further comprising an insulation layer disposed within the door, wherein the insulation layer varies in thickness between a first thickness and a second thickness, and wherein the second thickness is less than the first thickness”.
However, Jeon teaches further comprising an insulation layer (insulator 35 Fig. 4) disposed within a door (Fig. 4 where freezing compartment door 31 corresponds to the door of Hyunbum), wherein the insulation layer varies in thickness between a first thickness (see below annotated Fig. 4 of Jeon) and a second thickness (see below annotated Fig. 4 of Jeon), and wherein the second thickness is less than the first thickness (see below annotated Fig. 4 of Jeon) to insulate the ice making chamber (paragraph [0052]).
PNG
media_image1.png
735
617
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 “further comprising an insulation layer disposed within the door, wherein the insulation layer varies in thickness between a first thickness and a second thickness, and wherein the second thickness is less than the first thickness” in view of the teachings of Jeon to insulate the ice making chamber.
Regarding claim 14, and due to indefiniteness, the combined teachings teach wherein the first plurality of slots (Figs. 5-6 of Park where the plurality of slots defined by second lower ice cold air discharge hole 2432 corresponds to the first plurality of slots of Lee) allows the first flow of air into the first ice maker (Figs. 5-6 of Park where second ice maker 272 corresponds to the first ice maker of Hyunbum) from the freezer compartment (second storage compartment 210 Fig. 2 and paragraph [0056] of Park corresponds to the freezer compartment of Hyunbum), wherein the second plurality of slots (Figs. 5-6 of Park where the plurality of slots defined by second upper ice cold air discharge hole 2431 corresponds to the second plurality of slots of Lee) allows the second flow of air into the second ice maker (Figs. 5-6 of Park where first ice maker 271 corresponds to the second ice maker of Hyunbum) from the freezer compartment (Figs. 5-6 of Park), and wherein the second flow of air is about 0% of the first flow of air (Figs. 5-6 of Park).
Regarding claim 16, the combined teachings teach wherein the first plurality of slots (Fig. 3 of Park where the plurality of slots defined by second lower ice cold air discharge hole 2432 corresponds to the first plurality of slots of Lee) defines a first cross-sectional area (corresponds to the cross-sectional area of second lower ice cold air discharge hole 2432 Fig. 3 of Park), and wherein the second plurality of slots (Fig. 3 of Park where the plurality of slots defined by second upper ice cold air discharge hole 2431 corresponds to the second plurality of slots of Lee) defines a second cross-sectional area (corresponds to the cross-sectional area of second upper ice cold air discharge hole 2431 Fig. 3 of Park) that is smaller than the first cross-sectional area (Fig. 3 of Park).
Claims 7 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyunbum in view of Park and Jeon as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Hong et al. (US 20240044565 A1, herein after referred to as Hong).
Regarding claims 7 and 18, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein the insulation layer has the first thickness proximate the first ice maker, and wherein the insulation layer has the second thickness proximate the second ice maker”.
However, Hong teaches wherein an insulation layer (insulating material 103 Fig. 3 corresponds to the insulation layer of Jeon) has a first thickness (see below annotated Fig. 3 of Hong) proximate a first ice maker (door ice maker 253 Fig. 3 corresponds to the first ice maker of Hyunbum), and wherein the insulation layer has a second thickness (see below annotated Fig. 3 of Hong) proximate a second ice maker (ice maker 40 Fig. 3 corresponds to the first ice maker of Hyunbum) to provide room for additional component (Fig. 3).
PNG
media_image2.png
311
866
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 insulation layer has the first thickness proximate the first ice maker, and wherein the insulation layer has the second thickness proximate the second ice maker” in view of the teachings of Hong to provide room for additional component.
Claims 10-11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyunbum in view of Park as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Tatar et al. (WO2013000979 A2, herein after referred to as Tatar).
Regarding claim 10, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein the bucket is selectively positioned within the freezer compartment”.
However, Tatar teaches wherein a bucket (drawer 11 Fig. 6 corresponds to the bucket of Hyunbum) is selectively positioned within a freezer compartment (Figs. 1 and 4 where freezing compartment 2 corresponds to the freezer compartment of Hyunbum) to ease the access to the generated ice cubes (paragraph [0041]).
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 bucket is selectively positioned within the freezer compartment” in view of the teachings of Tatar to ease the access to the generated ice cubes.
Regarding claim 11, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein the bucket is slidably coupled with the door”.
However, Tatar teaches wherein a bucket (drawer 11 Fig. 6 corresponds to the bucket of Hyunbum) is slidably coupled with a door (Fig. 4 where door 3 corresponds to the door of Hyunbum) to ease the access to the generated ice cubes (paragraph [0041]).
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 bucket is slidably coupled with the door” in view of the teachings of Tatar to ease the access to the generated ice cubes.
Regarding claim 20, the combined teachings teach wherein the dispenser is coupled with an outside surface of the door (Fig. 1 and paragraph [0043] of Hyunbum).
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein the bucket is selectively positioned within the freezer compartment”.
However, Tatar teaches wherein a bucket (drawer 11 Fig. 6 corresponds to the bucket of Hyunbum) is selectively positioned within a freezer compartment (Figs. 1 and 4 where freezing compartment 2 corresponds to the freezer compartment of Hyunbum) to ease the access to the generated ice cubes (paragraph [0041]).
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 bucket is selectively positioned within the freezer compartment” in view of the teachings of Tatar to ease the access to the generated ice cubes.
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