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 .
Status
This Office Action is in response to the remarks and amendments filed on 07/31/2026. The drawing objections are withdrawn. Claims 2-21 remain pending for consideration on the merits.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 2-6 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Saito et al (US 20190093937 A1, hereinafter Saito).
Regarding claim 2, Saito teaches an ice maker (ice making machine 1) comprising: a tray (ice tray 20) configured to define an ice chamber for making ice (ice making recessed parts 21, figure 4); and a case (frame body 40) comprising a case plate (inner frame part 47) having a first surface (lower portion of inner frame part 47, figure 6), wherein the tray (ice tray 20) is coupled to the first surface of the case plate (as shown on figure 5).
Further, it is understood, claim 2 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, Saito teaches wherein the case (frame body 40) is configured to define a cool air hole (cold air duct 10), and wherein cool air passing through the cool air hole flows toward the tray (as shown on figure 2).
Further, it is understood, claim 3 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 4, Saito teaches wherein the case (frame body 40) further comprises: a case wall (end face 40a, figure 5) extending in a direction different from a direction of the case plate (figures 5-6), and wherein the cool air hole is formed in the case wall (as shown on figures 4-5).
Further, 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, Saito teaches wherein the cool air hole (cold air duct 10) extends farther than the case plate in a reference direction, or extends to a same extent as the case plate (as shown on figure 4) in the reference direction (horizontal direction, figure 4), and wherein the cool air passing through the cool air hole (cold air duct 10) flows along a second surface (upper surface of inner frame part 47, figure 8) of the case plate (inner frame part 47), the second surface (upper surface of inner frame part 47, figure 8) being opposite the first surface (lower portion of inner frame part 47, figure 6).
Regarding claim 6, Saito teaches wherein the case plate (inner frame part 47) defines a tray opening (figure 6) through which a portion of the tray is exposed (figure 5), and wherein the case (frame body 40) further comprises a cool air guide (cold air outlet port 12) configured to guide the cool air passing through the cool air hole (cold air duct 10) toward the tray opening (figure 6).
Further, it is understood, claim 6 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 20, Saito teaches a refrigerator (refrigerator F, figure 1) comprising the ice maker (ice making machine 1) of claim 2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito et al (US 20190093937 A1, hereinafter Saito) in view of Vega et al (US 20190093936 A1, hereinafter Vega).
Regarding claim 7, Saito teaches the invention as described above but fail to teach wherein the case plate further defines a through- opening configured to allow the cool air that has flowed through the tray opening to pass therethrough.
However, Vega teaches wherein the case plate (inside frame part 46) further defines a through- opening (figure 3) configured to allow the cool air that has flowed through the tray opening to pass therethrough (interpreted as air entering cold air duct 10 is capable of exiting via the opening on inside frame part 46, as shown on figure 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the ice maker in the teachings of Saito to include wherein the case plate further defines a through- opening configured to allow the cool air that has flowed through the tray opening to pass therethrough in view of the teachings of Vega in order to yield the predictable result of enhancing ice making efficiency.
Further, it is understood, claim 7 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.
Claims 8, 13 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito as modified by Vega, as applied to claim 7 above, and in further view of Kim (US 8671711 B2, hereinafter Kim).
Regarding claims 8 and 13, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to teach wherein the cool air guide substantially separates the cool air hole and the through-opening.
However, Kim teaches wherein the cool air guide (first guide rib 462) substantially separates the cool air hole (grill portion 420, figure 7) and the through-opening (left top portion of rib 462, figure 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the ice maker in the combined teachings to include wherein the cool air guide substantially separates the cool air hole and the through-opening in view of the teachings of Kim in order to yield the predictable result of effectively introducing the cool air.
Regarding claim 18, the combined teachings teach wherein the case (cover 400 of Kim) defines a through-opening (grill portion 420 of Kim) through which the cool air guided by the cool air guide passes (as shown on figure 7 of Kim), and wherein the cool air guide (first guide rib 462 of Kim) comprises a first guide (first guide rib 462 of Kim), at least a portion of the first guide being formed along a periphery of the through-opening (as shown on figure 7 of Kim).
Claims 9-12, 15-17 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito as modified by Vega, as applied to claim 7 above, and in further view of Joung et al (US 20130167576 A1, hereinafter Joung).
Regarding claim 9, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to teach wherein a portion of the cool air passing through the cool air hole flows along the cool air guide, changes a flow direction after flowing toward at least the ice chamber and then passes through the through-opening.
However, Joung teaches wherein a portion of the cool air passing through the cool air hole (via cool air inlet port 143, figure 4) flows along the cool air guide (along guide 191, figure 4), changes a flow direction after flowing toward at least the ice chamber (as shown on figure 4), and then passes through the through-opening (through-opening of lower cool air passage, paragraph 0041).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the ice maker in the combined teachings to include wherein a portion of the cool air passing through the cool air hole flows along the cool air guide, changes a flow direction after flowing toward at least the ice chamber and then passes through the through-opening in view of the teachings of Joung in order to yield the predictable result of thereby greatly reducing the ice making time.
Regarding claim 10, the combined teachings teach wherein the case (cover 141 of Joung) further comprises a cool air guide (guide 191 of Joung) configured to guide cool air toward the tray (as shown on figure 4 of Joung), and wherein the cool air guide (cold air outlet port 12 of Saito) is disposed at a second surface (upper surface of inner frame part 47, figure 8 of Saito) of the case plate (inner frame part 47 of Saito), the second surface (upper surface of inner frame part 47, figure 8 of Saito) being opposite the first surface (lower portion of inner frame part 47, figure 6 of Saito).
Further, it is understood, claim 10 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 11, the combined teachings teach wherein the case (cover 141 of Joung) defines a cool air hole (cool air inlet port 143 of Joung), and wherein the cool air guide (guide 191 of Joung) is configured to guide the cool air passing through the cool air hole (as shown on figure 4 of Joung).
Further, it is understood, claim 11 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 12, the combined teachings teach wherein the case (cover 141 of Joung) further defines a through- opening (through-opening of lower cool air passage, paragraph 0041 of Joung) through which the cool air guided by the cool air guide passes (via guide 191, figure 4 of Joung).
Regarding claim 15, the combined teachings teach all the limitations of claim 15. See rejections of claims 2 and 10.
Regarding claim 16, the combined teachings teach wherein the case (cover 141 of Joung) defines a cool air hole (cool air inlet port 143 of Joung) through which the cool air passes (figure 4), wherein the cool air guide (guide 191 of Joung) comprises a first guide (guide 191 of Joung) comprising a first end (top portion of guide 191, figure 4 of Joung) positioned adjacent to the cool air hole (adjacent to port 143, figure 4 of Joung).
Regarding claim 17, the combined teachings teach wherein the case (cover 141 of Joung) further defines a tray opening (top opening of tray 155, figure 4 of Joung) through which a portion of the tray is exposed (figure 4 of Joung), and wherein the first guide (guide 191 of Joung) further comprises a second end (lower end of guide 191, figure 4 of Joung) disposed adjacent to the tray opening (figure 4 of Joung).
Regarding claim 21, the combined teachings teach a refrigerator (refrigerator body 110 of Joung) comprising the ice maker (ice maker 151 of Joung) of claim 15.
Claims 14 and 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito et al (US 20190093937 A1, hereinafter Saito) in view of Bertolini et al (US 20190293335 A1, hereinafter Bertolini).
Regarding claims 14 and 19, Saito teaches the invention as described above but fail to teach wherein the tray comprises: a first tray configured to define a first chamber; and a second tray configured to define a second chamber, wherein the first chamber and the second chamber together define the ice chamber, and wherein the second tray is coupled to the first tray so as to be movable relative to the first tray, and the case is configured to fix a position of the first tray.
However, Bertolini teaches wherein the tray (figures 2-3) comprises: a first tray (upper stationary ice mold 30) configured to define a first chamber (ice cavity 32); and a second tray (lower rotatable ice mold 40) configured to define a second chamber (ice cavity 42), wherein the first chamber and the second chamber together define the ice chamber (paragraph 0047), and wherein the second tray is coupled to the first tray (as shown on figure 2) so as to be movable relative to the first tray (as shown on figure 3), and the case (mold support plate 33) is configured to fix a position of the first tray (figures 2-3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the ice maker in the teachings of Saito to include wherein the tray comprises: a first tray configured to define a first chamber; and a second tray configured to define a second chamber, wherein the first chamber and the second chamber together define the ice chamber, and wherein the second tray is coupled to the first tray so as to be movable relative to the first tray, and the case is configured to fix a position of the first tray in view of the teachings of Bertolini in order to yield the predictable result of forming two substantially spherical ice balls at a time.
Further, it is understood, claims 14 and 19 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/31/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to the Applicant’s argument that “Accordingly, Saito fails to disclose or suggest that "the tray is coupled to the first surface of the case plate," as recited”, the Examiner disagrees. For clarity, Saito is used in the rejection as a primary reference to teach a frame body 40 comprising of inner frame part 47 which includes an underside portion of inner frame part 47 and as shown on figure 5, the ice tray 20 is coupled to the under side portion of inner frame part 47. Therefore, the Applicant’s argument are not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
In response to the Applicant’s argument that “Further, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been led, absent impermissible hindsight gleaned from the present application, to modify Saito or Vega to arrive at the features of amended claim 2”, the Examiner disagrees. For clarity, Vega is used in the rejection as a secondary reference to modify the case plate portion of Saito and to teach wherein the case plate (inside frame part 46) further defines a through- opening (figure 3) configured to allow the cool air that has flowed through the tray opening to pass therethrough (interpreted as air entering cold air duct 10 is capable of exiting via the opening on inside frame part 46, as shown on figure 3). Additionally, the motivation statement of such modification is for enhancing ice making efficiency (as described in paragraph 0011). Therefore, the Applicant’s argument are not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
In response to the Applicant’s argument that “Amended independent claim 15 recites, in part, a case including "a cool air guide configured to guide cool air toward the tray" and "a case plate, at least a portion of the case plate being disposed between the cool air guide and the tray." The cited references fail to describe or otherwise render obvious at least these features. The Office Action equates Saito's cold air outlet port 12 to the claimed cool air guide. See Office Action, p. 5. However, Saito does not disclose a configuration in which any portion of inner frame part 47 is disposed between cold air outlet port 12 and ice tray 20, as recited by amended claim 15”, the Examiner disagrees. For clarity, Saito is used in the rejection as a primary reference to teach where cold air outlet port 12 is configured to guide air towards ice tray 20 (as shown on figure 2) and additionally, as shown on figure 8, an lower end of inner frame part 47 is disposed between the top side of cold air outlet port 12 and ice tray 20. Therefore, the Applicant’s argument are not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
In response to the Applicant’s argument that “Accordingly, the cited references, either alone or in proper combination, fail to describe or otherwise render obvious all of the features of amended independent claims 2 and 15. Applicant therefore submits that amended independent claims 2 and 15, as well as their dependent claims, are in condition for allowance”, the Examiner disagrees. For clarity, Saito is used in the rejection as a primary reference to teach a frame body 40 comprising of inner frame part 47 which includes an underside portion of inner frame part 47 and as shown on figure 5, the ice tray 20 is coupled to the underside portion of inner frame part 47. Additionally, as shown on figure 8, a lower end of inner frame part 47 is disposed between the top side of cold air outlet port 12 and ice tray 20. Therefore, the Applicant’s argument are not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
In response to the Applicant’s argument that “For example, claim 4 recites "a case wall extending in a direction different from a direction of the case plate," where "the cool air hole is formed in the case wall." The cited references do not disclose or otherwise render obvious these features. The Office Action equates Saito's end face 40a and cold air duct 10 with the claimed case wall and cool air hole, respectively. See Office Action, p. 4. However, Saito's cold air duct 10 is not formed in any portion of frame 40, much less in end face 40a. Thus, Saito does not disclose that "the cool air hole is formed in the case wall”, the Examiner disagrees. For clarity, Saito is used in the rejection as a primary reference to teach where end face 40a extends in a vertical direction (as shown on figure 5) whereas the inner frame part 47 extends in a horizontal direction (as shown on figure 5). Additionally, it is taught by Saito where cold air duct 10 is formed on the end face 40a (as shown on figure 5). Therefore, the Applicant’s argument are not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
In response to the Applicant’s argument that “However, the proposed combination still fails to disclose or suggest the claimed airflow path. Neither Saito nor Vega discloses a single case plate that includes both a tray opening and a through-opening. Nor do the references disclose cool air sequentially passing through the cool air hole, the tray opening, and then the through-opening, as required by the claim. In particular, Saito and Vega does not describe two openings such that cool air flowing through a tray opening subsequently passes through an opening in inside frame part 46. Thus, neither reference teaches or suggests the claimed airflow arrangement”, the Examiner disagrees. For clarity, Saito discloses that cold air outlet port 12 receives air from cold air duct 10 for cooling of the ice tray 20 (as shown on figures 5-6). Additionally, Vega teaches that the inside frame part 46 illustrates a through opening where air entering cold air duct 10 exits the opening on the inside frame part 46 (as shown on figure 3). Therefore, the Applicant’s argument are not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
In response to the Applicant’s argument that “However, Joung does not cure the deficiencies of Saito and Vega. Joung neither discloses nor suggests a structure in which both a tray opening and a through-opening are formed in a case plate to whose surface the tray is coupled. Nor does Joung disclose the claimed airflow path, in which cool air sequentially passes through a cool air hole, the tray opening, and then the through-opening”, the Examiner disagrees. For clarity, Joung discloses that via cool air inlet port 143 flows along guide 191 (as shown on figure 4) and it changes in direction after flowing to the ice chamber (as shown on figure 4) as the first guide 181 may be configured to form a lower cool air passage 182 between a bottom surface of the ice maker 151 and the first guide 181 (as described in paragraph 0041). Therefore, the Applicant’s argument are not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
In response to the Applicant’s argument that “Moreover, Kim describes that "cool air guided by the grill ribs 440 is directed to the top surface of the ice tray 600 by being guided by the first and second guide ribs 462 and 464." Kim, 7:54-57. However, Kim does not describe or suggest that "at least a portion of the first guide being formed along a periphery of the through-opening," as claimed”, the Examiner disagrees. For clarity, Kim discloses that the first guide rib 462 is formed on the outer periphery of grill portion 420 (as shown on figure 7). Additionally, the first guide rib 462 extends toward the front guide portion 750 of the bracket 700 and the second guide rib 464 extends toward the rear guide portion 740. Therefore, cool air guided by the grill ribs 440 is directed to the top surface of the ice tray 600 by being guided by the first and second guide ribs 462 and 464 (col 7 lines 52-57). Therefore, the Applicant’s argument are not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARIO DELEON whose telephone number is (571)272-8687. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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.
/DARIO ANTONIO DELEON/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights