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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed on 04/17/2024. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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,
Regarding Claim 6, the recitation of “a limiting member;
the limiting member is connected to the first side wall or the second side wall;
the limiting member is at least partially positioned in the first mounting groove; and
the limiting member and the second connecting portion are configured, in a state that the bottom wall is positioned in the first position, to be abutted against each other along the sleeve direction, to limit a movement of the bottom wall in a direction away from the second position,”
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Regarding Claim 10, the recitation of “an ice maker, comprising:
a machine body provided with a cavity inside; and
wherein the container is arranged in the cavity to form the container for storing ice,”
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Regarding Claim 11, the recitation of “the ice maker according to claim 10” and “the first side wall is connected to or abuts against the machine body, and the bottom wall is positioned above a bottom of the cavity; and
in the cavity, the space positioned below the bottom wall forms a water storage cavity for storing water, and the bottom wall moves between the first position and the second position to adjust a volume ratio of the accommodating cavity to the water storage cavity,”
must be shown 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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Regarding claim 6, the recitation of claim limitation “limiting member" in at least claim 6.
Corresponds to “a screw” in paragraph 0064 of the specification.
Regarding claim 8, the recitation of claim limitation “first limiting portion" and “second limiting portion” in at least claim 8.
Corresponds to “a raised first limiting portion 112 is disposed on the inner wall of the first side wall 110, and a raised second limiting portion 212 is disposed on the outer wall of the second side wall 210” in paragraph 0072 of the specification and further seen in Fig. 5.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 9-10 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lim et al. (KR-20070032598-A).
Regarding Claim 1, Lim teaches a container [30], comprising:
a first housing [40];
a bottom wall [Image I below a recreation of fig. 3] arranged in the first housing [30] and movable relative to the first housing [30] in a vertical direction [Image I below] between a first position [fig. 5 showing a first position] and a second position [fig. 6 showing a second position],
wherein the bottom wall [image I below] and at least a part of the first housing enclose [image I below] to form an accommodating cavity [image I below]; and
a dynamic adjustment assembly [70] operatively connected to the bottom wall [image I showing (73) attached to the bottom wall], wherein the dynamic adjustment assembly [70] is configured to dynamically adjust a position of the bottom wall between the first position and the second position [see figs. 5-6 clearly showing adjusting a position] according to a weight of an object contained in the accommodating cavity [pg. 7 paragraphs 6-7 “70 is deformed when the storage container 40 is filled with ice”], to adjust a volume of the accommodating cavity [figs. 5-6 clearly showing an adjusting a volume of (30)].
PNG
media_image1.png
335
392
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(fig. 3 of Lim; Image I)
Regarding Claim 2, Lim teaches the container according to claim 1, wherein the dynamic adjustment assembly [70] comprises an elastic member [Abstract “an elastic member(70)”];
the elastic member [70] is configured to provide elastic force [pg. 10; paragraph 1 “force of the elastic member”] along the vertical direction [Image I] such that the bottom wall [Image I] is positioned in the first position [fig. 5 showing the first position]; and
the bottom wall [Image I], driven by a gravity of the object contained in the accommodating cavity [pg. 13; paragraph 8 “fills the storage container 40, the bottom of the expansion container 60 installed in the lower portion of the storage container 40 is pressed downward”], is able to move between the first position and the second position [figs. 5-6].
Regarding Claim 7, Lim teaches the container according to claim 1, wherein one of the first side wall [Image I] and the second side wall [Image I] is provided with a guide groove [Image II below; recreation of fig. 6 of Lim] while the other one of the first side wall [Image I] and the second side wall [Image I] is provided with a guide portion [Image II below]; and
the guide groove [Image II] extends along the sleeve direction [Image I], the guide portion [Image II] is arranged in the guide groove [Image II ], and the guide portion is able to move along the guide groove [pg. 9; paragraph 4 “the upper end portion of the expansion container 60 hangs inside the lower end of the storage container 40”].
PNG
media_image2.png
440
499
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(Fig. 6 of Lim; Image II)
Regarding Claim 9, Lim teaches the container according to claim 1, wherein the first housing [40] and the second housing [30] are configured in one of the following ways:
the second side wall [Image I] is in sleeve connection with an outer wall [fig. 5 showing the second side wall in sleeve connection with an outer wall] of the first side wall [image I], and the bottom wall [Image I] is configured to be positioned below a bottom of the first side wall [Image I] when in the second position [Fig. 6 showing the bottom below the first side wall in a second position].
Regarding Claim 10, Lim teaches an ice maker [20], comprising:
a machine body [10] provided with a cavity inside [11]; and
the container according to claim 1 and Lim teaches wherein the container [30] is arranged in the cavity [11] to form the container for storing ice [fig. 10].
Regarding Claim 12, Lim teaches the container according to claim 1, wherein the container further comprises a second side wall [image I] connected to the bottom wall [Image I].
Regarding Claim 13, Lim teaches the container according to claim 12, wherein the first housing comprises a first side wall [image I];
the first side wall [Image I] is in sleeve connection with the second side wall [Image I showing sleeved connection with the second sidewall; see also figs. 5-6]; and
the first side wall [image I] and the second side wall [image I] are able to move relative to each other along a sleeve direction [Figs. 5-6 showing movement in a sleeved direction].
Regarding Claim 3, Lim teaches the container according to claim 13, wherein the dynamic adjustment assembly [70] comprises an elastic member [Abstract “an elastic member(70)”];
the elastic member [70] is a spring [pg. 4; paragraph 3 “a spring”] extending along the sleeve direction [Image I];
one of the first side wall and the second side wall [Image I] is provided with a first mounting seat [Image I] while the other one of the first side wall and the second side wall [Image I] is provided with a second mounting seat [Image I];
the spring [70] is connected between the first mounting seat and the second mounting seat [Image I clearly shows the spring connected between them]; and
a deformation amount of the spring gradually increases in a process that the bottom wall moves from the first position to the second position [pg. 7 paragraphs 6-7 “70 is deformed when the storage container 40 is filled with ice”; see also figs. 5-6].
Regarding Claim 4, Lim teaches the container according to claim 3, wherein the first mounting seat [image I] comprises a first connecting portion [73] and a first mounting groove [Image I] extending along the sleeve direction [Image I];
the second mounting seat [Image I] comprises a second connecting portion [72];
the spring [70] is arranged in the first mounting groove [Image I];
the first connecting portion [73] and the second connecting portion [72] are connected to both ends of the spring, respectively [Image I]; and
the second connecting portion [72] is able to slide along the first mounting groove [pg. 8; paragraph 3 “72 protrudes and protrudes from the edge” where (72) would slide along the first mounting groove].
Regarding Claim 5, Lim teaches the container according to claim 4, wherein the second mounting seat [Image I] further comprises a second mounting groove [pg. 7; paragraph 9 “71 is formed by recessing the outer edge of the expansion container 60 to the inside”, a recess] extending along the sleeve direction [Image I];
the first mounting seat [Image I] is in sleeve connection with the second mounting seat [Image I; see also fig. 5];
the first mounting groove [Image I] and the second mounting groove [recess] form a mounting cavity [fig. 5 where there is a mounting cavity shown by the spring being between (40 and 60)];
the spring [70] is arranged in the mounting cavity [fig. 5 showing (70) in the mounting cavity]; and
the first connecting portion [73] is able to slide along the second mounting groove [pg. 8; paragraph 4 “73 protrudes and protrudes from the edge of the expansion container 60” where (73) would slide along the second mounting groove].
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.
Claim(s) 6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Ju et al. (KR-20030087401-A).
Regarding Claim 6, Lim teaches the container according to claim 4 and teaches wherein the container [30] further comprises a limiting member [pg. 9; paragraph 4 “the upper end portion of the expansion container 60 hangs inside the lower end of the storage container 40” hereinafter “lips” there is a lip at the upper end of (60) and a lip at the lower end of (40)];
the limiting member [lips] is connected to the first side wall [a lip at the lower end of (40)] or the second side wall [a lip at the upper end of (60)].
Lim does not explicitly teach the limiting member is at least partially positioned in the first mounting groove; and the limiting member and the second connecting portion are configured, in a state that the bottom wall is positioned in the first position, to be abutted against each other along the sleeve direction, to limit a movement of the bottom wall in a direction away from the second position.
However, Ju teaches the limiting member [Image III below a recreation of fig. 5 of Ju corresponding to the lips of Lim] is at least partially positioned in the first mounting groove [Image III corresponding to Image I of Lim]; and
the limiting member [Image III] and the second connecting portion [image III corresponding to Image 73 of Lim; further someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize that the second connecting portion would only include where the spring attaches and not the rest of the limiting member structure] are configured, in a state that the bottom wall [fig. 3 showing a bottom wall of 32 corresponding to Image I] is positioned in the first position [fig. 3 showing the first position corresponding to the first position of Lim], to be abutted against each other along the sleeve direction [Image III clearly showing that they are abutted when in the first position; see further fig. 3 showing a sleeve direction corresponding to Image I of Lim], to limit a movement of the bottom wall in a direction away from the second position [Image III which would limit a movement of the bottom wall I a direction away from the second position].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Lim to have the limiting member is at least partially positioned in the first mounting groove; and the limiting member and the second connecting portion are configured, in a state that the bottom wall is positioned in the first position, to be abutted against each other along the sleeve direction, to limit a movement of the bottom wall in a direction away from the second position in view of the teachings of Ju where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results,
i.e. secures a container where the limiting member is at least partially positioned in the first mounting groove, and the limiting member and the second connecting portion are configured, in a state that the bottom wall is positioned in the first position, to be abutted against each other along the sleeve direction, to limit a movement of the bottom wall in a direction away from the second position which make the container easier to use [Ju; Abstract; pg. 1].
PNG
media_image3.png
393
361
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(Image III of Ju)
Regarding Claim 8, Lim teaches the container according to claim 1 and teaches wherein the first side wall [Image I] is provided with a first limiting portion [pg. 9; paragraph 4 “the upper end portion of the expansion container 60 hangs inside the lower end of the storage container 40” hereinafter “lips” a lip at the lower end of (40)], and the second side wall [Image I] is provided with a second limiting portion [pg. 9; paragraph 4 “the upper end portion of the expansion container 60 hangs inside the lower end of the storage container 40” hereinafter “lips” there is a lip at the upper end of (60)].
Lim does not explicitly teach the first limiting portion and the second limiting portion are configured, in a state that the bottom wall is positioned in the first position, to be abutted against each other along the sleeve direction, to limit the movement of the bottom wall in a direction away from the second position.
However, Ju teaches the first limiting portion [Image IV below recreation of Ju fig. 4 corresponding to the first limiting portion of Lim] and the second limiting portion [Image IV below corresponding to the second limiting portion of Lim] are configured, in a state that the bottom wall [Image IV corresponding to Image I of Lim] is positioned in the first position [fig. 3 corresponding to the first position of Lim], to be abutted against each other along the sleeve direction [fig. 3 showing a sleeved direction corresponding to Image I of Lim ], to limit the movement of the bottom wall in a direction away from the second position [fig. 3 showing limiting the movement of the bottom wall in a direction away from the second position].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Lim with Ju by combining the first limiting portion and the second limiting portion are configured, in a state that the bottom wall is positioned in the first position, to be abutted against each other along the sleeve direction, to limit the movement of the bottom wall in a direction away from the second position where the elements could have been combined by known methods with and a Simple substitution would give the system the necessary limiting portions .The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are yielded,
i.e. secures a container which the first limiting portion and the second limiting portion in a state that the bottom wall is positioned in the first position, are abutted against each other along the sleeve direction, to limit the movement of the bottom wall in a direction away from the second position which make the container easier to use [Ju; Abstract; pg. 1].
PNG
media_image4.png
592
477
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(Image IV of Ju)
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim as applied to claim 10 and further in view of Venkata et al. (US-20250052468-A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Lim teaches the ice maker according to claim 10 and Lim teaches wherein the container [30] further comprises a second side wall [Image I] connected to the bottom wall [Image I];
the first housing [40] comprises a first side wall [image I];
the first side wall and the second side wall are in sleeve connection along an up-down direction [Image I showing sleeved connection with the second sidewall; see also figs. 5-6];
the first side wall and the second side wall are able to move relative to each other along a sleeve direction [Image I showing sleeved connection with the second sidewall; see also figs. 5-6];
the first side wall [image I ] is connected to or abuts against the machine body [Fig. 10 showing the first wall connected to and abutting against (10)], and the bottom wall [Image I] is positioned above a bottom of the cavity [fig. 10 showing the bottom wall above a bottom of the cavity].
Lim does not explicitly teach in the cavity, the space positioned below the bottom wall forms a water storage cavity for storing water, and the bottom wall moves between the first position and the second position to adjust a volume ratio of the accommodating cavity to the water storage cavity.
However, Venkata teaches in the cavity [12 corresponding to 11 of Lim], the space positioned below the bottom wall [22 corresponding to image I of Lim] forms a water storage cavity [26] for storing water [0024 “The water tank 24 may define a storage volume 26”].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Lim to have in the cavity, the space positioned below the bottom wall forms a water storage cavity for storing water in view of the teachings of Venkata where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results,
i.e. secures an ice maker where in the cavity, the space positioned below the bottom wall forms a water storage cavity for storing water which allows the melt water may in exemplary embodiments be reused by the appliance to form ice [Venkata; 0040].
Furthermore, the recitation of “the bottom wall moves between the first position and the second position to adjust a volume ratio of the accommodating cavity to the water storage cavity” is a statement of intended use that does not further limit the claimed invention. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus. See In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962).
The Courts have held that the manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987).
The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)).
“Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969). Lastly, the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results,
i.e. secures an ice maker where the bottom wall moves between the first position and the second position to adjust a volume ratio of the accommodating cavity to the water storage cavity which allows the melt water may in exemplary embodiments be reused by the appliance to form ice [Venkata; 0040].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adam D Moore whose telephone number is (703)756-1932. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday: 09:00AM-07:00PM (Eastern).
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.
/ADAM D MOORE/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/ELIZABETH J MARTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights