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 under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/14/2025 was filed on or after the mailing date of the Application. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being 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 5 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 5, the recitations of ““...the basin resin comprises conductive resin such as polypyrrole…,” renders the claim unclear. The recitation is considered to be a form of exemplary claim language and therefore renders the claims indefinite [MPEP 2173.05(d)]. Specifically, the applied phrasing appears to imply that materials other than the disclosed polypyrrole may be encompassed in the claim language, making it unclear as to whether or not the claimed narrower range is a limitation. Thus, the recitation of an example in the claims makes the intended scope of the claim unclear, therefore rendering the claim and all claims depending therefrom indefinite.
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.
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larson et al. (US 20200064043 A1, hereinafter “Larson”) and further in view of Lee (US 20120216561 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
615
973
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 1, Larson teaches a tray [12] for an ice maker [10] [Figs. 1-8; ¶ 0062-0063], comprising:
a tray body [12] in which an ice-making space [pockets 13] is provided allowing at least a portion thereof to be made of a conductive composite material containing a conductive material and base resin [¶ 0005-0007, 0069; the ice tray may be fabricated with highly conductive material, such as aluminum; the tray may also be formed using a polymer material (resin) by means of injection molding] so that upon application of external power, the conductive material forms electrical networks and generates heat through electrical resistance, thereby enabling separation of ice produced therein [¶ 0075-0078; a heater element may provide power through conductors 38 to release ice cubes from the surface of the pockets]; and
power terminals [at least 46] inserted into the tray body [¶ 0074, 0078; Fig. 5; apparent from inspection], receiving the external power [via voltage source 52], and supplying the external power to the tray body [¶ 0075-0077; power is provided to the heaters to heat the tray],
wherein the tray body has a plurality of ice-making compartments [pockets 13] [¶ 0069; Figs. 1-9; apparent from inspection] in such a way as to be spaced apart from one another in forward and backward directions thereof [Referring to Fig. 5, the left-right direction of the figure is considered the claimed front-back direction, meeting the limitation; conversely, the up-down direction of the figure is considered to be the claimed left-right direction], and the power terminals are inserted into one side end surface of the tray body with respect to the left and right directions of the tray body [See annotated Fig. 5; apparent from inspection conductors 46 provide at least one terminal path at the top of the figure, wherein the top 46 may be a right side], and into the other side end surface of the tray body with respect to the left and right directions of the tray body [See annotated Fig. 5; apparent from inspection conductors 46 provide at least one terminal path at the bottom of the figure, wherein the bottom 46 may be a left side], in such a way as to allow positive and negative polarities to be alternately changed from one side end surface to the other side end surface with respect to the left and right directions of the tray body [¶ 0074-0075; the terminals necessarily comprise opposite polarities in order to enable the flow of electron, as the energy source 52 is described as a voltage source, therefore either side must comprise a positive polarity while the other is negative, thus capable of alternating].
While Larson discloses that additional freezing pockets are contemplated in the invention [¶ 0063], Larson does not explicitly disclose wherein the ice making compartments are arranged in at least two rows in left and right directions thereof. Similarly, while Larson teaches a further plurality of conductors [46] disposed between the left-most and right-most conductors [See annotated Fig. 5; apparent from inspection], Larson does not necessarily disclose wherein power terminals are inserted between the at least two rows of ice-making compartments.
However, Lee teaches an ice maker [100] with an ice-making tray [110] wherein the tray comprises a plurality of chambers [116] arranged in two rows for making ice [Fig. 2; ¶ 0056-0058]. Lee further discloses a plurality of heat sources [150] disposed within the ice tray, such that each row comprises its own heating element [¶ 0065-0066; Fig. 5]. Lee therefore teaches that providing a plurality of rows of ice-forming chambers, each row having respective heating sources, is a known technique in the art as the plurality of heaters provide a means for the plurality of ice-forming chambers to separate the ice from the chamber for proper ejection of the ice [¶ 0059] as well as commonsensically increasing the rate of ice production by duplicating the ice-forming rows. Note: Lee teaches a plurality of embodiments [Figs. 5-12] showing either a single row or two-row ice making trays, thus teaching that a duplication of rows may also be considered obvious, as duplication of a means to produce ice may commonsensically duplicate said ice being produced. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the plurality of ice-forming rows and heaters as claimed by known methods and that in combination, the plurality of ice-forming rows and would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. providing a means for the plurality of ice-forming chambers to separate the ice from the chamber for proper ejection of the ice [¶ 0059] as well as commonsensically increasing the rate of ice production by duplicating the ice-forming rows.
Therefore, it is a simple mechanical expedient that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Larson to have wherein the ice making compartments are arranged in at least two rows in left and right directions thereof, and wherein power terminals are inserted between the at least two rows of ice-making compartments, in view of the teachings of Lee, where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. providing a means for the plurality of ice-forming chambers to separate the ice from the chamber for proper ejection of the ice as well as increasing the rate of ice production by duplicating the ice-forming rows.
In summary, considering the teachings of Lee to provide the rows of ice chambers with accompanying heating elements in plurality, one of ordinary skill in the art may therefore provide the system of Fig. 5 of Larson in plurality. The combination may therefore provide a plurality of terminals 46 for each respective row. Considering that each row may have up to four terminals, the combined system may comprise a rightmost terminal on the right row, a leftmost terminal on the left row, and at least six terminals therebetween that may be considered between the rows, under the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Regarding Claim 6, Larson, as modified, teaches the tray according to claim 1 above and Larson teaches wherein the tray body is molded integrally with the power terminals by means of insert injection molding so that one end of each power terminal is exposed to the outside [Figs. 5-6; ¶ 0074-0076; Larson discloses that the thermoformed blank of the ice tray comprises conductor patterns 38, wherein they terminate into proximal conductors 46, disposed outside of the tray; see Fig.6].
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larson and Lee, as in claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (KR 20120026342 A, hereinafter “Kim”).
Regarding Claim 2, Larson, as modified, teaches the tray according to claim 1 above, and while Larson teaches fabricating the ice tray with highly conductive material, such as aluminum and a polymer material (resin) [¶ 0005-0007, 0069] Larson does not explicitly teach wherein the conductive material comprises: carbon members dispersing into the base resin to form the electrical networks and containing at least one or more materials of carbon nanotubes, graphene, carbon fibers, and graphite filler; and metal powder interposed between the carbon members to increase the electrical networks formed by the carbon members and thermal conductivity of the conductive composite material so that electrical resistance heat generated from the carbon members is transferred to the surfaces of the tray body.
However, Kim teaches an ice making machine [100] comprising an ice making tray [102] [¶ 31], wherein the ice tray may be made of thermoplastic resin or thermal conductive epoxy mixed with components including carbon nanotubes, carbon fiber, graphite, graphene, etc., as well as metal powder [¶ 33]. Kim discloses that the example materials are heat radiation accelerated substances and thus their presence raises the ice making operation efficiency, thereby improving the system [¶ 33]. One of ordinary skill in the art could have applied a known technique to a known device (i.e. provide an icetray with known thermally conductive materials) and that in combination, the technique would improve the known device in a similar manner, and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. providing materials that are known to be heat radiation accelerated substances raises the ice making operation efficiency, thereby improving the system [¶ 33].
Therefore, it is a simple mechanical expedient that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Larson to have wherein the conductive material comprises: carbon members dispersing into the base resin to form the electrical networks and containing at least one or more materials of carbon nanotubes, graphene, carbon fibers, and graphite filler; and metal powder interposed between the carbon members to increase the electrical networks formed by the carbon members and thermal conductivity of the conductive composite material so that electrical resistance heat generated from the carbon members is transferred to the surfaces of the tray body, in view of the teachings of Kim, where applying a known technique to a known device with no change in their respective function would improve the known device in a similar manner and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. providing materials that are known to be heat radiation accelerated substances raises the ice making operation efficiency, thereby improving the system.
Regarding Claim 3, Larson, as modified, teaches the tray according to claim 2 above and Kim teaches wherein the carbon members contain all of the carbon nanotubes, graphene, carbon fibers, and graphite filler [¶ 33].
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larson, Lee and Kim as in claim 2 above, and further in view of Ghosh et al. (US 20050070658 A1, hereinafter “Ghosh”).
Regarding Claim 4, Larson, as modified, teaches the tray according to claim 2 above but Larson does not explicitly teach wherein, based on the total weight of the conductive composite material, the content of the carbon nanotubes is 10 to 17% by weight, the content of the graphene is 1 to 1.7% by weight, the content of the carbon fibers is 2 to 5% by weight, the content of the graphite filler is 10 to 50% by weight, and the content of the metal powder is 12 to 22% by weight [Note: Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation [MPEP 2143.03]; in Claim 2, the recitation “at least one or more materials of…” is provided in the alternative, and thus does not require each and every feature listed; accordingly, subsequent claims drawn to more than the at least one of the features listed do not limit the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim].
However, Ghosh teaches known electrically conductive compositions of polymers [Tables 1-3; ¶ 0136-0142] wherein Ghosh teaches that samples containing a combination of the graphite and nanosized conductive filler have superior electrical properties over graphite alone, providing a known result (improved electrical properties) from an effective variable (i.e. wt % of conductive filler) [¶ 0136]. Ghosh teaches that carbon nanotubes, carbon fibers, and conductive metal oxides are known conductance improving fillers [¶ 0082-0083]. Ghosh discloses that metallic conductive fillers may be between about 0.001 to 25% by weight [¶ 0116]. Ghosh also discloses wherein the carbon wt % may be at least 0-15 % [see at least Table 2]. Ghosh further teaches a plurality of samples [Tables 2-3], wherein the tables demonstrate the known proportional conductivity effect of different combinations of filler compositions in different samples [¶ 0137-0139]. Thus, the percentage carbon filler/conductive filler in a synthesized polymer is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is a polymer with increased electrical conductivity.
Therefore, since the general condition of the claim is disclosed by the prior art reference, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide wherein the content of the carbon fibers is 2 to 5% by weight, and the content of the metal powder is 12 to 22% by weight, in order to arrive at a synthesized polymer with greater electrical conductivity.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larson and Lee as in claim 1 above, and further in view of Ghosh.
Regarding Claim 5, Larson, as modified, teaches the tray according to claim 1 above but Larson does not explicitly teach wherein the base resin is PA6 or PA66 nylon and contains 20 to 60% by weight of the PA6 or PA66 nylon, based on the total weight of the conductive composite material, and the base resin comprises conductive resin such as Polypyrrole (PPy) as well as the non-conductive resin such as the PA6 or PA66 nylon and contains 0 to 10% by weight of the conductive resin.
However, Ghosh teaches known electrically conductive compositions of polymers [Tables 1-3; ¶ 0136-0142] wherein Ghosh teaches that polymer samples containing a combination of the graphite and nanosized conductive filler have superior electrical properties over graphite alone, providing a known result (improved electrical properties) from an effective variable (i.e. wt % of conductive filler) [¶ 0136]. Ghosh teaches that carbon nanotubes, carbon fibers, and conductive metal oxides are known conductance improving fillers [¶ 0082-0083]. Ghosh discloses that metallic conductive fillers may be between about 0.001 to 25% by weight [¶ 0116]. Ghosh further teaches a plurality of samples [Tables 2-3], containing at least PA 6, wherein the tables demonstrate the known proportional conductivity effect of different combinations of filler compositions in different samples [¶ 0137-0139]. Thus, the percentage carbon filler/conductive filler in a synthesized polymer is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is a polymer with increased electrical conductivity.
Therefore, since the general condition of the claim is disclosed by the prior art reference, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide wherein the base resin is PA6 or PA66 nylon and contains 20 to 60% by weight of the PA6 or PA66 nylon, based on the total weight of the conductive composite material, and the base resin comprises conductive resin such as Polypyrrole (PPy) as well as the non-conductive resin such as the PA6 or PA66 nylon and contains 0 to 10% by weight of the conductive resin, in order to arrive at a synthesized polymer with greater electrical conductivity [See 112(b) rejection above regarding the exemplary disclosure of polypyrrole in the claim, wherein the claims narrow the base resin to a conductive resin, and it is unclear if the conductive resin is positively further narrowed to polypyrrole; or if polypyrrole is merely one example of the narrowed conductive resin].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
(US 20160273995 A1) discusses the known application of polypyrrole and other similar polymers as being utilized for having known inherent electrical conductivity properties.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEITH S MYERS whose telephone number is (571)272-5102. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:00.
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.
/KEITH STANLEY MYERS/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
