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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/01/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 2 calls for the limitation “The ice-making control method according to claim 1, in the ice-making control method, determining whether to extend the ice-making time based on whether the terminal part temperature information measured at the first extension determination point is equal to or higher than a reference temperature”; which limitation is indefinite for being unclear. Applicant is encouraged to recite the following:
“The ice-making control method according to claim 1, wherein determining whether to extend the ice-making time is based on whether the terminal part temperature information measured at the first extension determination point is equal to or higher than a reference temperature”.
Claim 4 calls for the limitation “setting the first extension determination point to time before the ice-making guarantee time from an end time of the ice-making time”; which limitation is indefinite for not being understood. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are indefinite for their dependency on an indefinite base claim.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Josten (US 4938030 A).
Regarding claim 1:
Josten discloses an ice-making control method including:
initiating ice-making on a plurality of ice-making fingers #14 by flowing refrigerant in an evaporator #11 which has the plurality of ice-making fingers spaced apart in a longitudinal direction (Fig. 2);
after the initiating of the ice-making, acquiring terminal part temperature information of the evaporator at a first extension determination point (via #38; col. 5, L 46-54);
determining whether to extend a set ice-making time based on the terminal part temperature information; and when it is determined to extend the ice-making time, extending the ice-making time by a first extension time and making ice during the extended ice-making time (see col. 5, L 52 – col. 6, L 26: “When the thermister 38 indicates the plate 12 temperature to be at or below a predetermined temperature, the delay timer 39 is started. If the indicated temperature remains at or below the predetermined temperature for the delay timer period, the timer 39 will complete a countdown of the delay time period and upon completion of the countdown the timer 39 will provide a signal that freezing of a batch of ice cubes has been completed”).
Regarding claim 2:
Josten further discloses wherein determining whether to extend the ice-making time is based on whether the terminal part temperature information measured at the first extension determination point is equal to a reference temperature (col. 5, L 57 – col. 6, L 11: “When the thermister 38 indicates the plate 12 temperature to be at a predetermined temperature [equivalent of claimed reference temperature], the delay timer 39 is started”).
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Josten (US 4938030 A) in view of Doberstein (US 20080092567 A1).
Regarding claim 3:
Josten discloses all the limitations, except for wherein setting the first extension determination point is based on the ice-making time.
In the same field of endeavor, Doberstein teaches wherein after starting an ice maker, a controller is configured to set an extension of making ice based on an ice making time ([0051-0052]). This is a clear indication that the setting of the extension determination point is based on an ice-making time.
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the apparatus of Josten with setting the first extension determination point is based on the ice-making time; in a similar manner as taught by Doberstein.
One of ordinary skills would have recognized that doing so would have provided a more accurate determination of whether additional freezing is necessary.
Regarding claims 4-6:
Where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. As stated in In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims. See MPEP 2173.06.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wakatsuki (US 20080216490 A1), Doberstein (US 20080092574 A1), Yoshida (US 20050155360 A1), Kuroyanagi (US 20030010055 A1), and Linstromberg (US 4344295 A).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIONEL W NOUKETCHA whose telephone number is (571)272-8438. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri: 08:00 AM - 04:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Frantz Jules can be reached on 571-272-6681. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LIONEL NOUKETCHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights