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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 09/08/2025 and 06/15/2026 were filed after the filing date of this application on 03/18/2025. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the drawings include photographs, which are both not the only practicable medium for illustration of the invention, but are also of insufficient clarity to actually illustrate the invention.
For example, it is unclear what Figures 7A-7B illustrate. 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.
The applicant is directed to consult the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure, section 608.02, and more specifically, 37 CFR 1.84, Standards for Drawings, section (b) (1), as quoted below:
(b) Photographs
(1) Black and white, Photographs, including photocopies of photographs, are not ordinarily permitted in utility and design patent applications. The Office will accept photographs in utility and design patent applications, however, if photographs are the only practicable medium for illustrating the claimed invention. For example, photographs or photomicrographs of: electrophoresis gels, blots (e.g., immunological, western, Southern, and northern), auto-radiographs, cell cultures (stained and unstained), histological tissue cross sections (stained and unstained), animals, plants, in vivo imaging, thin layer chromatography plates, crystalline structures, and, in a design patent application, ornamental effects, are acceptable. If the subject matter of the application admits of illustration by a drawing, the examiner may require a drawing in place of the photograph. The photographs must be of sufficient quality so that all details in the photographs are reproducible in the printed patent.
In this case, the examiner is requiring illustration by drawings in lieu of photographs or photograph/drawing combinations.
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 Objections
Claims 14 and 17-18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 14, the phrase “a waiting time is exceeded a preheating waiting time” is grammatically incorrect, and for examination purposes will be interpreted as -- a waiting time has exceeded a preheating waiting time --
Regarding claim 17, the phrases “wherein it is determined that the door is closed in the door detecting process, the fan detecting process is performed” seem to be incomplete, and for examination purposes will be interpreted as -- wherein when it is determined that the door is closed in the door detecting process, the fan detecting process is performed --
Regarding claim 18, the phrases “wherein it is determined that the door is opened in the door detecting process, the waiting time detecting process is performed” seem to be incomplete, and for examination purposes will be interpreted as -- wherein when it is determined that the door is opened in the door detecting process, the waiting time detecting process is performed --
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 1-19 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 refrigerator comprising: a first tray … a second tray” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how a refrigerator can comprise these structures without an ice maker. More clarity is requested.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the off state” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For examination purposes, the phrase “the off state” will be interpreted as -- an off state --
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS. —Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 6, the claim recites “wherein turned-on states of the first and second heaters are maintained in the moving process” while claim 1 from which the claim depends already discloses “wherein the first heater and the second heater are operated during the moving process”. As such it is unclear how claim 1 is further limited.
Claim 7 is also rejected due to dependency.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-3, 6, 8-13, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20200158401 A1, herein after referred to as Kim) in view of Park et al. (US 20240102714 A1, herein after referred to as Park).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches a refrigerator (refrigerator 1 Fig. 2) comprising: a first tray (upper tray 150 Fig. 71) configured to define a first portion (upper portion of ice chamber 111 Fig. 69) of an ice chamber (ice chamber 111 Fig. 69); a second tray (lower tray 250 Fig. 71) configured to define a second portion of the ice chamber (lower portion of ice chamber 111 Fig. 69); a first heater (upper heater 148 Fig. 69) to supply heat to the ice chamber (paragraph [0253]); and a second heater (lower heater 296 Fig. 69) to supply heat to the ice chamber (paragraph [0780]), wherein an ice separation process (corresponds to the disclosed “ice-removal process” together with the burr melting process described in paragraph [0050]) is performed after an ice making process (paragraph [0051] where the disclosed “ice-making” corresponds to the ice separation process) is completed (paragraph [0051]), wherein the ice separation process includes: a preheating process (corresponds to the burr melting process described in paragraph [0050]) in which the first heater and the second heater are turned on such that the heat is supplied to the ice chamber (paragraph [0050]), and a moving process (corresponds to the process described in paragraph [0547] and Fig. 74) in which the second tray moves to an ice separation position (the position illustrated in Fig. 74) such that the ice is separated after a completion of the preheating process (paragraph [0050]), and wherein a heating amount of the second heater (disclosed lower heater 296 “heat capacity” in paragraph [0663]) supplied to the ice chamber in the preheating process is less (paragraph [0663] where it is understood that the heating amount of lower heater 296 would always be smaller than the heating amount of upper heater 148 since lower heater 296 is less powerful) than a heating amount of the first heater (disclosed upper heater 148 “heat capacity” in paragraph [0663]) supplied to the ice chamber in the preheating process (paragraph [0663]).
Kim teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach “wherein the first heater and the second heater are operated during the moving process”.
However, Park teaches wherein a first heater (first heater 930 Fig. 9 corresponds to the first heater of Kim) and a second heater (second heater 940 Fig. 9 corresponds to the second heater of Kim) are operated during a moving process (paragraph [0134] where step S1207 Fig. 12 corresponds to the moving process of Kim) to effectively remove residual ice from the sealing surface between the first tray and the second tray (paragraph [0136]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of Kim to include “wherein the first heater and the second heater are operated during the moving process” in view of the teachings of Park to effectively remove residual ice from the sealing surface between the first tray and the second tray.
Regarding claim 2, the combined teachings teach wherein the first heater is configured to supply heat to the first tray (Fig. 69 and paragraph [0780] of Kim), and the second heater is configured to supply heat to the second tray (Fig. 69 and paragraph [0780] of Kim).
Regarding claim 3, the combined teachings teach wherein the heating amount of the second heater is adjusted through on/off duty control (paragraphs [0128] to [0131] of Park).
Regarding claim 6, the combined teachings teach wherein turned-on states of the first and second heaters (disclosed “operation of the first heater 930 and the second heater 940” in paragraph [0134] of Park) are maintained in the moving process (paragraph [0134] of Park).
Regarding claim 8, the combined teachings teach wherein the preheating process (the disclosed “ice-separating condition” in paragraph [0117] of Park corresponds to the preheating process of Kim) is performed for a time (paragraph [0017] of Park) greater than a first preheating time (understood to be the longer in duration between the disclosed “predetermined time” or the time it would take to reach the disclosed “predetermined temperature” as described in paragraph [0117] of Park), and wherein, after the first preheating time has elapsed, when a preset preheating completion condition (understood to be either the “predetermined time” elapsing or the temperature reaching the “predetermined temperature” as described in paragraph [0117] of Park) is satisfied, the preheating process is completed (paragraph [0117] of Park).
Regarding claim 9, the combined teachings teach wherein, when a second preheating time (understood to be when 15 minutes elapse as described in paragraph [0117] of Park) has elapsed (paragraph [0117] of Park), it is determined that the preset preheating completion condition is satisfied (paragraph [0117] of Park).
Regarding claim 10, the combined teachings teach wherein when a temperature (paragraph [0117] of Park) sensed by a temperature sensor (temperature sensing unit 970 Fig. 9 and paragraph [0104] of Park) reaches a preset preheating completion temperature (the disclosed temperature of
-
6
0
C
t
o
-
8
0
C
in paragraph [0117] of Park), it is determined that the preset preheating completion condition is satisfied (paragraph [0117] of Park).
Regarding claim 11, the combined teachings wherein the temperature sensor is configured to detect a temperature of the first tray (paragraph [0104] and Fig. 3 of Park where first tray 111 corresponds to the first tray of Kim).
Regarding claim 12, the combined teachings wherein the ice separation process comprises a fan detecting process (referring to paragraph [0051] of Kim, a person skilled in the art would recognize that some process must be used to determine whether the disclosed “blowing fan” is operating or not) to detect an operation status (corresponds to the stoppage of the “blowing fan” as disclosed in paragraph [0051] of Kim) of a freezer fan (disclosed “blower fan” in paragraph [0155] of Kim), and wherein the preheating process is performed (paragraph [0051] of Kim) when an operation of the freezer fan (corresponds to the operation of the disclosed “blowing fan” in paragraph [0051] of Kim) is detected to be in an off state (paragraph [0051] of Kim) in the fan detection process (paragraph [0051] of Kim).
Regarding claim 13, the combined teachings wherein the ice separation process further comprises a waiting time detecting process (the disclosed “additional ice-making complete condition” in paragraph [0015] of Park) performed after the ice making process is completed (paragraph [0015] of Park) and before the fan detecting process is performed (referring to paragraph [0051] of Kim, a person skilled in the art would recognize that some process must be used to determine whether the disclosed “blowing fan” is operating or not).
Regarding claim 19, the combined teachings wherein the second heater is capable of being operated in the ice making process (paragraph [0586] of Kim).
Regarding claim 20, Kim teaches an ice maker (ice maker 100 Fig. 71) comprising: a first tray (upper tray 150 Fig. 71) configured to define a first portion (upper portion of ice chamber 111 Fig. 69) of an ice chamber (ice chamber 111 Fig. 69); a second tray (lower tray 250 Fig. 71) configured to define another portion of the ice chamber (lower portion of ice chamber 111 Fig. 69); a first heater (upper heater 148 Fig. 69) to supply heat to the ice chamber (paragraph [0253]); and a second heater (lower heater 296 Fig. 69) to supply heat to the ice chamber (paragraph [0780]), wherein an ice separation process (corresponds to the disclosed “ice-removal process” together with the burr melting process described in paragraph [0050]) is performed after an ice making process (paragraph [0051] where the disclosed “ice-making” corresponds to the ice separation process) is completed (paragraph [0051]), wherein the ice separation process includes: a preheating process (corresponds to the burr melting process described in paragraph [0050]) in which the first heater and the second heater are turned on such that the heat is supplied to the ice chamber (paragraph [0050]), and a moving process (corresponds to the process described in paragraph [0547] and Fig. 74) in which the second tray moves to an ice separation position (the position illustrated in Fig. 74) such that the ice is separated after the preheating process is performed (paragraph [0050]), and wherein a heating amount of the second heater (disclosed lower heater 296 “heat capacity” in paragraph [0663]) supplied to the ice chamber in the preheating process is less (paragraph [0663] where it is understood that the heating amount of lower heater 296 would always be smaller than the heating amount of upper heater 148 since lower heater 296 is less powerful) than a heating amount of the first heater (disclosed upper heater 148 “heat capacity” in paragraph [0663]) supplied to the ice chamber in the preheating process (paragraph [0663]).
Kim teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach “wherein the first heater and the second heater are operated during the moving process”.
However, Park teaches wherein a first heater (first heater 930 Fig. 9 corresponds to the first heater of Kim) and a second heater (second heater 940 Fig. 9 corresponds to the second heater of Kim) are operated during a moving process (paragraph [0134] where step S1207 Fig. 12 corresponds to the moving process of Kim) to effectively remove residual ice from the sealing surface between the first tray and the second tray (paragraph [0136]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of Kim to include “wherein the first heater and the second heater are operated during the moving process” in view of the teachings of Park to effectively remove residual ice from the sealing surface between the first tray and the second tray.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Park as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chung et al. (US 20160356539 A1, herein after referred to as Chung).
Regarding claim 4, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein in one duty cycle, an on-time of the second heater is greater than an off-time of the second heater”.
However, Chung teaches wherein in one duty cycle (
t
0
-
t
2
Fig. 5B), an on-time of a second heater (
t
0
-
t
1
Fig. 5B where heater 80 Fig. 2 corresponds to the second heater of Kim) is greater than an off-time of the second heater (
t
1
-
t
2
Fig. 5B) to maintain the storage compartment within a specific temperature range (paragraph [0083]).
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 in one duty cycle, an on-time of the second heater is greater than an off-time of the second heater” in view of the teachings of Chung to maintain the storage compartment within a specific temperature range.
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Park as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (WO2020071755A1, herein after referred to as Lee).
Regarding claim 5, the combined teachings teach wherein the second tray is made of an elastic material (paragraph [0032] of Kim).
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein the first tray is made of a plastic material”.
However, Lee teaches wherein a first tray (First tray 320 Fig. 4 corresponds to the first tray of Kim) is made of a plastic material (paragraph [0100]) to easily separate the attached ice (paragraph [0100]).
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 first tray is made of a plastic material” in view of the teachings of Lee to easily separate the attached ice.
Regarding claim 7, the combined teachings teach a heating amount of the second heater (corresponds to the heating amount of second heater 940 when second tray 112 is moved as described in paragraph [0134] of Park) in the moving process (paragraph [0134] of Park) and the heating amount of the second heater in the preheating process (paragraph [0663] of Kim).
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein the heating amount of the second heater in the moving process is greater”.
However, Lee teaches a second heater (ice heater 290 Fig. 6) that is kept on during a moving process (step S31 Fig. 14) with a heating amount that can be increase or decrease during an ice separation process (paragraph [0246]).
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 heating amount of the second heater in the moving process is greater” in view of the teachings of Lee to account for changes in the amount of heat transfer between the water and the cold air (paragraph [0246]).
Claims 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Park as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (KR0155775B1, herein after referred to as Lee’75).
Regarding claim 15, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein the ice separation process further comprises a door detecting process to detect whether a door is opened or closed, and wherein the door detecting process is performed before the fan detecting process is performed”.
However, Lee’75 teaches wherein a process (the process illustrated in Fig. 3 corresponds to the ice separation process of Kim) further comprises a door detecting process (step 109 Fig. 3) to detect whether a door (door 6 Fig. 1) is opened or closed (page 3 and Fig. 3), and wherein the door detecting process is performed before a fan detecting process (Fig. 3 where step 112 corresponds to the fan detecting process of Kim) is performed (Fig. 3) to regulate internal temperature changes caused and to reduce frost buildup on the evaporator (page 2).
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 ice separation process further comprises a door detecting process to detect whether a door is opened or closed, and wherein the door detecting process is performed before the fan detecting process is performed” in view of the teachings of Lee’75 to regulate internal temperature changes caused and to reduce frost buildup on the evaporator.
Regarding claim 16, the combined teachings teach wherein the door comprises a freezer door (freezing compartment door 6 Figs. 1-2 of Kim).
Regarding claim 17, the combined teachings teach wherein when it is determined that the door is closed in the door detecting process (step 109 Fig. 3 of Lee’75), the fan detecting process is performed (step 112 Fig. 3 of Lee’75).
Regarding claim 18, the combined teachings teach wherein when it is determined that the door is opened in the door detecting process (step 109 Fig. 3 of Lee’75), the waiting time detecting process is performed (Fig. 3 of Lee’75 where step 113 corresponds to the waiting time detecting process of Park).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 14 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Reasons for Indicating Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 14, the prior art of record when consider as a whole, alone or in combination, neither anticipates nor renders obvious “wherein when it is determined that a waiting time has exceeded a preheating waiting time, the fan detecting process is skipped and the preheating process is performed”.
The closet prior art reference(s), Kim (US 20200158401 A1) and Park (US 20240102714 A1), fail(s) to disclose, suggest or teach “wherein when it is determined that a waiting time has exceeded a preheating waiting time, the fan detecting process is skipped and the preheating process is performed”.
Therefore, claim 14 is considered allowable.
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