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 specification makes several references to “an ice making tray assembly (21)” and “multiple ice making trays (221)”. However, it appears that these are mistranslations of the priority document as element (21) is an ice making tray, and elements (221) are ice making cells or compartments in CN 20240335308.0. Should this translation error persist, questions could arise towards priority for any claims that are interpreted to cover the multiple ice making trays since the priority document does not cover such structure. For the purposes of examination, the examiner is going to presume the claims as currently presented are correct and require “multiple ice making trays” instead of multiple ice making cells. However, it is recommended that the translation of elements 21 and 221 from the priority document be reconsidered and corrected if necessary.
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, a fixing slot is disposed at the contact surface between the box and the ice-making machine frame for fixing the clamping slot as required in claim 14 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). In this case, the claim requires a fixing slot and a clamping slot, the fixing slot fixing the clamping slot. The only slots shown in the drawings are slots 251. They are never described in the Detailed Description as being either the clamping slots or the fixing slot. Even if one of these slots (251) could be considered a fixing slot, and another of the slots (251) could be considered the clamping slot, none of these slots could be considered to perform the function of “fixing” the other as required. Without a drawing showing the “fixing” relationship between the clamping and fixing slots, a proper understanding of the disclosed invention cannot be made. No new matter should be entered.
Further, the claims require “multiple ice trays”. However, none of the drawings show multiple ice trays. There appears to be one tray with multiple ice compartments. Without a drawing showing this particular feature, the relationship between the multiple ice making trays and the ice making tray assembly cannot be ascertained. The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims 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 10-28 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 10 recites the limitation "the cold air flow direction" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, the examiner is going to treat the claim as if it read, a cold air flow direction”.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the ice-maker frame" in lines 12 and 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, the examiner is going to treat the claim as if it read, “the ice-making machine frame”.
Claim 11 recites the limitation " the angle between the inclined baffle and the horizontal surface". However, the parent claim identifies an angle along the cold air flow direction. It is unclear if the angle of claim 10 is the same or a different angle from claim 11. For the purposes of examination, the examiner is going to treat the claim as if it read, “the angle along the cold air flow direction”.
Claim 13 requires the clamping slot to be “evenly distributed at and edge of the contact surface…”. However, a single slot ordinarily cannot be “evenly distributed” as claimed. For the purposes of examination, the examiner is going to treat the claim as if it read, “the clamping slot is
Claim 14 requires “a fixing slot . . . for fixing the clamping slot”. The relationship between the fixing slot and clamping slot is unclear as a slot would not generally be considered to be capable of “fixing” another slot. Applicant’s specification does not provide any guidance as to the relationship between these slots except for the exact wording of the claim. As such, the limitation of the fixing slot fixing the clamping slot cannot be ascertained and the claim unclear.
Claim 19 requires “the elastic limiter . . . resist[s] the opening of the clamping slot”. This construction is ambiguous as it may mean, the elastic limiter obstructs or blocks the slot’s opening, or it could mean resist the removal of the hanging column through the opening. Where the elements of a claim have two or more plausible constructions such that the examiner cannot readily ascertain positional relationship of the elements, the claim may be rendered indefinite, see MPEP 2173.05(b)(II) citing Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 2008) (precedential). Since the wording of the claim is such that the positional relationship of the elastic limiter and the clamping slot cannot be discerned, the claim is indefinite.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the cold air flow direction" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, the examiner is going to treat the claim as if it read, a cold air flow direction”.
Claim 21 recites the limitation " the angle between the inclined baffle and the horizontal surface". However, the parent claim identifies an angle along the cold air flow direction. It is unclear if the angle of claim 20 is the same or a different angle from claim 21. For the purposes of examination, the examiner is going to treat the claim as if it read, “the angle along the cold air flow direction”.
Claim 28 requires “the elastic limiter . . . resist[s] the opening of the clamping slot”. This construction is ambiguous as it may mean, the elastic limiter obstructs or blocks the slot’s opening, or it could mean resist the removal of the hanging column through the opening. Where the elements of a claim have two or more plausible constructions such that the examiner cannot readily ascertain positional relationship of the elements, the claim may be rendered indefinite, see MPEP 2173.05(b)(II) citing Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 2008) (precedential). Since the wording of the claim is such that the positional relationship of the elastic limiter and the clamping slot cannot be discerned, the claim is indefinite.
Claims 12, 15-18, and 22-27 are also rejected by virtue of dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 10, 12-20, and 22 -28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2019/111321 to Suzuki et al., hereinafter referred to as Suzuki, (see English language translation provided herewith), in view of KR0168995 to Ryu et al., hereinafter referred to as Ryu, (see English language translation provided herewith).
In reference to claims 10, 20, and 22-24, Suzuki as modified by Ryu disclose the claimed invention.
Suzuki discloses an ice-making machine (10), comprising:
an ice-making tray assembly (11);
an ice-turning motor (12) fixedly connected to one end of the ice-making tray assembly, wherein the ice-turning motor is used to drive the ice-making tray assembly to turn;
an induced air duct having an air inlet (6) and an air outlet (13), the air outlet having (13) an inclined baffle (18b) arranged at an angle along a cold air flow direction, wherein the inclined baffle gradually approaches the ice-making tray assembly in a direction perpendicular to a horizontal surface of the ice-making tray assembly (see figure 5);
an ice-making machine frame (18) having an ice detection rod (19), wherein the ice detection rod is installed on the ice-turning motor (12), wherein the ice-making machine frame is installed in a box (150) of a freezing chamber of a refrigerator; and
Suzuki fails to disclose the ice-making tray assembly having multiple ice trays nor assembly components distributed on a contact surface between the ice-maker frame and the box to fix the ice-maker frame to the box, wherein the assembly components include a clamping slot, a fixed hanging column, and an elastic limiter.
Ryu teaches that in the art of ice makers, that it is a known method to provide an ice-making tray assembly (10) having multiple ice trays (8, see figure 3 and 4 where multiple ice trays (8) are illustrated). Ryu further teaches assembly components distributed on a contact surface (top of frame 10) between the ice-maker frame (10) and the box to fix the ice-maker frame to the box (7), wherein the assembly components include a clamping slot (14), a fixed hanging column (13), and an elastic limiter (15/16). One skilled in the art would understand that multiple ice making trays would increase the production of ice by the ice maker. Ryu further teaches that the assembly components allow for selective attaching and detaching of the ice maker assembly. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, to modify Suzuki by Ryu such that, the ice-making tray assembly had multiple ice trays as well as assembly components distributed on a contact surface between the ice-maker frame and the box to fix the ice-maker frame to the box, wherein the assembly components include a clamping slot, a fixed hanging column, and an elastic limiter, since all claimed elements were known in the art, and one having ordinary skill in the art could have modified the prior art as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded a predictable result of increasing the ice production of the ice making assembly and allow for easy selective attaching and detaching of the ice maker assembly.
In reference to claim 12, Suzuki as modified by Ryu disclose the claimed invention.
Ryu fails to disclose a distance between a lowest point of the inclined baffle and the horizontal surface of the ice-making tray assembly ranges from 3 cm to 9 cm. However there is no evidence of record that an apparatus including the claimed relative dimensions would perform differently than the prior art device. Further, there is no evidence of record that an apparatus including the claimed relative dimensions would produce anything more than what is predictable to one skilled in the art. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, to modify Ryu such that a distance between a lowest point of the inclined baffle and the horizontal surface of the ice-making tray assembly ranges from 3 cm to 9 cm since it has been held that recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device, see MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A).
In reference to claim 13, Suzuki as modified by Ryu disclose the claimed invention.
Ryu discloses the clamping slot (14) is
In reference to claim 14, Suzuki as modified by Ryu disclose the claimed invention.
Ryu discloses a fixing slot (see annotated reference below for the examiner's definition of the fixing slot (small slot outside of elastic limiter 15/16) and the clamping slot) is disposed at the contact surface (top surface of 10) between the box (12) and the ice-making machine frame (10) for fixing the clamping slot. Accordingly, when modifying Suzuki by Ryu as applied in claim 10 supra, the limitations of claim 14 would be met by the combination.
PNG
media_image1.png
331
852
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In reference to claim 15, Suzuki as modified by Ryu disclose the claimed invention.
Ryu discloses the fixed hanging column (13) is configured to be pushed horizontally into the clamping slot (14) along an inward direction of an opening of the clamping slot to fix the clamping slot (direction of arrow seen in figure 5), the ice-making machine frame (10), and the box (12). Accordingly, when modifying Suzuki by Ryu as applied in claim 10 supra, the limitations of claim 15 would be met by the combination.
In reference to claims 16 and 25, Suzuki as modified by Ryu disclose the claimed invention.
Ryu discloses the fixed hanging column (13) has a T-shaped structure (when viewed from the side as seen in figure 4. Accordingly, when modifying Suzuki by Ryu as applied in claim 10 supra, the limitations of claim 16 would be met by the combination.
In reference to claims 17 and 26, Suzuki as modified by Ryu disclose the claimed invention.
Suzuki as modified supra fails to disclose an outer surface of an extending end in a vertical direction of the T-shaped structure has a concave part and a convex part. However, there is no evidence of record that the shape of the fixed hanging column is significant in any way. Further it appears that the apparatus of Suzuki as modified by Ryu would work equally well if the shape of the T-shaped structure was any shape as long as the column engaged the slot and was able to hold it in place. It appears that providing the claimed shape would produce nothing more than what would be predictable in the art, i.e. engage and secure the ice making frame to the refrigeration apparatus. Further, there is no evidence of record that changing the shape would modify the operation of the device in any way. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to modify the T-shaped structure to have a concave part and a convex part since it has been held the configuration of a claimed apparatus was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant, see MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(B).
In reference to claims 18 and 27, Suzuki as modified by Ryu disclose the claimed invention.
Suzuki as modified supra fails to disclose the concave part of the T-shaped structure is engaged with the clamping slot. However, there is no evidence of record that providing a concave part of the T-shaped structure is engaged with the clamping slot is for any particular reason, is critical to the invention, solves any stated purpose, or produces anything more than predictable results as it appears that the apparatus of Suzuki would work equally well if the engaging surface was any shape as long as it was able to be received in the slot. Accordingly, it would have been a mere matter of obvious design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, to have the concave part of the T-shaped structure to engage with the clamping slot in order to provide a predictable result of engaging surface mating within the ordinary level of one skilled in the art.
In reference to claims 19 and 28, Suzuki as modified by Ryu disclose the claimed invention.
Ryu discloses the elastic limiter (15/16)is disposed at the opening of the clamping slot and is inclined toward an inside of the clamping slot to resist the opening of the clamping slot (inclined surface 16). Accordingly, when modifying Suzuki by Ryu as applied in 10 supra, the limitations of 19 would be met by the combination.
Claims 11 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Ryu as applied supra and in further view of US2010/0313594 to Lee, hereinafter referred to as Lee.
In reference to claims 11 and 21, Suzuki as modified by Ryu and Lee disclose the claimed invention.
Suzuki as modified fails to disclose the angle between the inclined baffle and the horizontal surface ranges from 20° to 60°. However, the angle of the air outlet is recognized as a result effective variable, because it is a variable that achieves a recognized result. That is the air outlet angle ensures uniform distribution of air over the ice maker, see Lee [0013]. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select an optimum angle of the air inlet to be from 20° to 60° since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering optimum or workable ranges involve only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
See US2010/0050681 to Ryu et al., US 20080173040 to Lim et al., and KR 100765201 to Lim et al., all showing vastly different shapes of a clamping slots and fixed hanging columns that all perform the same function of mounting and securing an ice making frame to a ceiling of a refrigerator in a quick and easy manner providing evidence that the particular shape of the clamping slots and fixed hanging columns is merely design choice.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CASSEY D BAUER whose telephone number is (571)270-7113. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs: 10AM-8PM (ET).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Frantz Jules can be reached at 571-272-6681. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CASSEY D BAUER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights