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
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract recites “may” which renders it unclear what is being described as the invention. 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).
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: “a first deformation resistance reinforcement wall” and “a second deformation resistance reinforcement wall”.
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 1-20 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 1 recites “a first surface defining a portion of the cell” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if “a portion of the cell” is the same portion or a different portion of the cell. For examination purposes interpreted to recite -- a first surface defining the portion of the cell --.
Claim 8 recites “a second deformation resistance reinforcement wall” which renders the claim. The specification describes in paragraph 0290 of the published specification a portion of the first portion 322 defined by the first tray wall 321 serves as a deformation resistance reinforcement part (or a first deformation resistance reinforcement part). In addition, the second portion 323 extending outward from the first portion 322 serves as a deformation resistance reinforcement part (or a second deformation resistance reinforcement part) which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how there can be a second deformation resistance reinforcement wall without a first deformation resistance reinforcement wall. Clarity is advised.
Claim 15 recites “a minimum value” which is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “minimum” is not defined by the claim, 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. Thus, as used to qualify the degree of deformation resistance, this term renders the same indeterminate and the claim (and all claims depending therefrom) indefinite with regard to the scope of protection sought thereby.
Claims 18-20 recite “an ice maker” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the ice maker is the same ice maker or a different ice maker. For examination purpose, the limitation is interpreted to recite -- the ice maker --.
Claims 2-7, 9-14, 16-17 are rejected based on dependency from a rejected claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son et al (US 20130014536) further in view of Boarman et al (US 20140165598).
Regarding claim 1, Son teaches an ice maker (100) comprising: a first tray assembly (110) having a portion of a cell (150); a second tray assembly (120) having another portion of the cell, the portion (fig. 6) and the another portion of the cell being configured to define a space (fig. 6) of the cell to receive a liquid (water, paragraph 0072) to be phase-changed to form ice (ice, paragraph 0072); an ice separation heater (565) configured to supply heat in at least period of an ice separation process (paragraph 0121); and an ice heater (564) configured to supply heat, wherein one of the first tray assemblies comprises a first portion (annotated fig. below), the first portion comprising: a first surface (outline in annotated fig. below defines a first surface) defining the portion of the cell (fig. 6), and a first deformation resistance reinforcement wall (annotated fig. below) extending from the first surface in a direction away from the ice heater (wall extends away from 564) but fails to explicitly teach a transparent ice heater configured to supply heat in at least period of an ice making process.
However, Boarman teaches a transparent ice heater (heating element, paragraph 0159) configured to supply heat in at least period of an ice making process (clear ice spheres, paragraph 0159) to efficiently make clear ice.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the ice maker of Son to include a transparent ice heater configured to supply heat in at least period of an ice making process in view of the teachings of to efficiently make clear ice.
PNG
media_image1.png
602
628
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 2 and 9, the combined teachings teach the first deformation resistance reinforcement wall extends from the first surface in a direction of Z axis away (fig. 3 of Son) from the transparent ice heater, and the first tray assembly and the second tray assembly are arranged in the direction of Z axis (fig. 3 of Son).
Regarding claims 3 and 10, the combined teachings teach the first deformation resistance reinforcement wall includes a portion (fig. 24 of Son) disposed farther from the transparent ice heater than the ice separation heater.
Regarding claims 4 and 11, the combined teachings teach an end surface of the first deformation resistance reinforcement wall includes a portion (fig. 24 of Son) disposed closer to the ice separation heater than the transparent ice heater.
Regarding claims 5 and 12, the combined teachings teach the one of the first or the second tray assemblies includes: a tray (113 of Son) having the first deformation resistance reinforcement wall, and a tray case (112 of Son) configured to surround the tray, wherein the first deformation resistance reinforcement wall includes a surface in contact with the tray case (fig. 6 of Son), and wherein the surface of the first deformation resistance reinforcement wall includes a portion disposed closer to the ice separation heater than the transparent ice heater (fig 24 of Son).
Regarding claims 6 and 13, the combined teachings teach the first deformation resistance reinforcement wall includes a surface in contact with the bracket (111 of Son), and wherein the surface of the first deformation resistance reinforcement wall includes a portion disposed closer to the ice separation heater than the transparent ice heater (fig. 24).
Regarding claims 7 and 14, the combined teachings teach the first deformation resistance reinforcement wall includes a surface (fig. 24 of Son) that faces another of the first and second tray assemblies, and wherein the surface of the first deformation resistance reinforcement wall includes a portion disposed closer to the ice separation heater than the transparent ice heater.
Regarding claim 8, the combined teachings teach all the limitations of claim 8 including a second portion (annotated fig. below) extending from a predetermined point of the first portion (annotated fig. below) , and the second portion comprises a second deformation resistance reinforcement wall (annotated fig. below).
PNG
media_image2.png
602
628
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 18 and 19, the combined teachings teach a refrigerator (1 of Son) comprising: a cabinet (2 of Son) including a storage chamber (4 of Son); a door (6 of Son) that opens and closes the storage chamber; and the ice maker (fig. 2 of Son).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-17 and 20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 15, the subject matter which is considered to distinguish from the closest prior art of record, Son (US 20130014536) in view of Boarman et al (US 20140165598). The prior art of record teaches an ice maker comprising: a first tray assembly having a portion of a cell; a second tray assembly having another portion of the cell, the portion and the another portion of the cell being configured to define a space of the cell to receive a liquid to be phase-changed to form ice; an ice separation heater configured to supply heat in at least period of an ice separation process; and a transparent ice heater configured to supply heat in at least period of an ice making process, wherein one of the first or the second tray assemblies is spaced further apart from the transparent ice heater than an other of the first or the second tray assemblies in contrast to the claimed features of a minimum value of a degree of deformation resistance of the one of the first or the second tray assemblies is greater than that of the other of the first or the second tray assemblies
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH J MARTIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3840. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-3:00 CT pm M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
/ELIZABETH J MARTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights