REFRIGERATOR

§102 §103 §112

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(s) (IDS) submitted on 4/10/2025 was/were in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner. Claim Objections Claim(s) 10 and 16 is/are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 7 recites “is may be” and should recite - - may be - - . Claim 10 recites “he” and should recite - - The - - . Claim 16 recites “the first outlet end A1” and should recite - - the first outlet end - - . 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. Claim(s) 11 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 11, line 4, recites “the first vertical line A1”. However, it is unclear what “first vertical line” is being referred to because there is a lack of antecedent basis for a “first vertical line A1”. For purposes of examination “the first vertical line A1” will be considered - - a first vertical line A1 - - . Claim 11, line 5, recites “the inlet outlet end”. It is unclear what “inlet outlet end” is being referred to because there is a lack of antecedent basis for an “inlet outlet end”. For purposes of examination “the first inlet end” will be considered - - Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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, 3-8, 10-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chandra et al. (US 20190383543). Per claim 1, Chandra teaches a refrigerator comprising: a cabinet (120) having a storage space; a door (128) configured to open and close the storage space; an ice maker (160) provided in the door or the cabinet and configured to generate ice; and a dispenser (140) provided in the door and configured to discharge ice generated by the ice maker, wherein the dispenser includes a dispenser housing (152) configured to form a receiving space (150), an ice chute (202) configured to form an ice path (208) through which the ice generated by the ice maker moves, a cap duct (214) configured to open and close the ice path, wherein the ice chute includes a chute body (body of 202) having an ice inlet and an ice outlet, the ice inlet includes a first inlet end (see annotated figure below) and a second inlet end (see annotated figure below) spaced apart from the first inlet end (see figure 4), the second inlet end (see annotated figure below) is disposed closer to a front surface of the door (128) than the first inlet end (see annotated figure below) (see figure 4), wherein the chute body includes a first extension wall (see annotated figure below) extending from the first inlet end (see annotated figure below), and a second extension wall (see annotated figure below) extending from the second inlet end (see annotated figure below), the first extension wall is inclined in a direction closer to the second extension wall from an upper side to a lower side (see figure 4), and the second extension wall is inclined in a direction closer to the first extension wall from an upper side to a lower side (see figure 4). PNG media_image1.png 660 781 media_image1.png Greyscale Per claim 3, Chandra meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 2. Further, Chandra, as modified, teaches wherein a vertical length of the first extension wall (see annotated figure below) is greater than a vertical length of the second extension wall (see annotated figure below). PNG media_image2.png 488 926 media_image2.png Greyscale Per claim 4, Chandra meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Chandra teaches wherein a length of the ice outlet in a front-back direction of the door is less than a length of the ice outlet in a left-right direction of the door (see annotated figure below). PNG media_image3.png 624 545 media_image3.png Greyscale Per claim 5, Chandra meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Chandra teaches wherein the ice outlet includes a first outlet end (see annotated figure below) and a second outlet end (see annotated figure below) spaced apart from the first outlet end, and the second outlet end is disposed closer to a front surface of the door than the first outlet end (see figure 4). PNG media_image4.png 462 656 media_image4.png Greyscale Per claim 6, Chandra meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 5. Further, Chandra teaches wherein a first virtual line (see annotated figure below) passing through a point that bisects the first outlet end (see annotated figure below) and the second outlet end (see annotated figure below) in a front-back direction of the door is disposed closer to a front surface of the door (128) than a second virtual line (see annotated figure below) passing through a point that bisects the first inlet end and the second inlet end in a front-back direction of the door (see annotated figure below). PNG media_image5.png 622 594 media_image5.png Greyscale Per claim 7, Chandra meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 5. Further, Chandra teaches wherein a third vertical line A3 (see annotated figure below) extending vertically from the first inlet end may be disposed outside the ice outlet (see annotated figure below). PNG media_image6.png 531 482 media_image6.png Greyscale Per claim 8, Chandra meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 7. Further, Chandra teaches wherein an entirety of the ice path (path through 200) is disposed between the third vertical line A3 and a front surface of the door (see figure 4 and the annotated figure directly above). Per claim 10, Chandra meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 5. Further, Chandra teaches wherein with respect to a front-back direction of the door, a distance between a fourth vertical line A4 (see annotated figure below) extending vertically from the second inlet end and a second vertical line A2 (see annotated figure below) extending vertically from the second outlet end is less than a distance between a first vertical line A1 (see annotated figure below) extending vertically from the first outlet end and a third vertical line A3 (see annotated figure below) extending vertically from the first inlet end. PNG media_image7.png 837 994 media_image7.png Greyscale Per claim 11, Chandra meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 5. Further, Chandra teaches wherein with respect to a front-back direction of the door, a distance between the first vertical line A1 (see annotated figure below) extending vertically from the first outlet end and a third vertical line A3 (see annotated figure below) extending vertically from the first inlet end is greater than a distance between the first vertical line A1 (see annotated figure below) and a second vertical line A2 extending vertically from the second outlet end (see annotated figure below). PNG media_image8.png 734 902 media_image8.png Greyscale Per claim 12, Chandra meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 5. Further, Chandra teaches wherein the ice chute further includes a fixing portion (see annotated figure below) extending from the first extension wall (see first annotated figure above) to be coupled to the dispenser housing (152) (to clarify, all elements of an assembly are considered to be “coupled” to one another structurally (directly/indirectly) or thermally). PNG media_image9.png 493 459 media_image9.png Greyscale Per claim 13, Chandra meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 12. Further, Chandra teaches wherein the fixing portion (see annotated figure directly above) is disposed between a first vertical line A1 (see annotated figure below) extending vertically from the first outlet end and a third vertical line A3 extending vertically from the first inlet end (see annotated figure below). PNG media_image10.png 617 581 media_image10.png Greyscale Per claim 14, Chandra meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 5. Further, Chandra teaches wherein in a state in which the cap duct opens the ice path (see figure 4), a fourth vertical line A4 (see annotated figure below) extending vertically from the second inlet end (see first annotated figure above) may not pass through the cap duct. PNG media_image11.png 509 569 media_image11.png Greyscale Per claim 15, Chandra meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 14. Further, Chandra teaches wherein a rotation center of the cap duct is disposed between the fourth vertical line A4 and a front surface of the door (outer surface of 128). PNG media_image12.png 434 460 media_image12.png Greyscale Per claim 16, Chandra meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 5. Further, Chandra teaches wherein in a state in which the cap duct closes the ice path, a first vertical line A1 (see annotated figure below) extending vertically from the first outlet end (see first annotated figure above) may not pass through the cap duct. PNG media_image13.png 704 848 media_image13.png Greyscale Per claim 17, Chandra meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 5. Further, Chandra teaches wherein the dispenser further includes an ice guide (204) having an outlet (212) through which ice passing through the ice chute is discharged, and a center of the ice outlet (see annotated figure below) of the ice guide is disposed between a fourth vertical line (see annotated figure below) A4 extending vertically from the second inlet end and a front surface of the door (front surface of 128). PNG media_image14.png 840 706 media_image14.png Greyscale Per claim 18, Chandra teaches a refrigerator comprising: a cabinet (120) having a storage space; a door (128) configured to open and close the storage space; an ice maker (160) provided in the door or the cabinet and configured to generate ice; and a dispenser (140) provided in the door and configured to discharge ice generated by the ice maker, wherein the dispenser includes a dispenser housing (152) configured to form a receiving space (150), an ice chute (202) configured to provide an ice path (208) through which the ice generated by the ice maker moves, wherein the ice chute includes a chute body (body of 202) having an ice inlet and an ice outlet, the ice inlet includes a first inlet end (see first annotated figure above) and a second inlet end (see first annotated figured above) spaced apart from the first inlet end, the second inlet end is disposed closer to a front surface of the door than the first inlet end (see figure 4), the ice outlet includes a first outlet end (see first annotated figure above) and a second outlet end (see first annotate figure above) spaced apart from the first outlet end (see figure 4), wherein the second outlet end is disposed closer to a front surface of the door than the first outlet end (see figure 4), with respect to a front-back direction of the door, a distance between a fourth vertical line (see annotated figure below) A4 extending vertically from the second inlet end and a second vertical line (see annotated figure below) A2 extending vertically from the second outlet end is less than a distance between the second vertical line (see annotated figure below) A2 and a first vertical line (see annotated figure below) A1 extending vertically from the first outlet end. PNG media_image15.png 717 676 media_image15.png Greyscale Per claim 19, Chandra meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 18. Further, Chandra teaches wherein with respect to a front-back direction of the door, a distance (see annotated figure below) between a fourth vertical line (see annotated figure below) A4 extending vertically from the second inlet end and a second vertical line (see annotated figure below) A2 extending vertically from the second outlet end is less than a distance (see annotated figure below) between a first vertical line (see annotated figure below) A1 extending vertically from the first outlet end and a third vertical line(see annotated figure below) A3 extending vertically from the first inlet end. PNG media_image16.png 712 665 media_image16.png Greyscale Per claim 20, Chandra meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 18. Further, Chandra teaches wherein with respect to a front-back direction of the door, a distance (see annotated figure below) between the first vertical line (see annotated figure below) A1 extending vertically from the first outlet end and a third vertical line (see annotated figure below) A3 extending vertically from the first inlet end is greater than a distance (see annotated figure below) between the first vertical line (see annotated figure below) A1 and a second vertical line (see annotated figure below) A2 extending vertically from the second outlet end. PNG media_image17.png 666 842 media_image17.png Greyscale 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 of this title, 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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) 2 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chandra et al. (US 20190383543). Per claim 2, Chandra meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Chandra teaches an inclination angle of the first extension wall with respect to a horizontal plane (see annotated figure below) and an inclination angle of the second extension wall (see annotated figure below) but fails to explicitly teach wherein the inclination angle of the first extension wall is equal to or greater than an inclination angle of the second extension wall. PNG media_image18.png 482 823 media_image18.png Greyscale However, it is noted that the difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is a change in angle. There is no evidence of record that this claimed angle is critical or produces any unexpended results. In fact, it appears that a device having the claimed angle would not operate differently than the device disclosed by Chandra. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the inclination angle of the first extension wall is equal to or greater than an inclination angle of the second extension wall since it has been held that changes in size/proportion when the claimed device and a prior art device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (MPEP 2144.04, section IV, paragraph A, “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.”). Per claim 9, Chandra meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 5. Further, Chandra teaches wherein with respect to a front-back direction of the door, a distance between a fourth vertical line A4 extending vertically from the second inlet end and a second vertical line A2 extending vertically from the second outlet end (see annotated figure below) and a distance between the second vertical line A2 and a first vertical line A1 extending vertically from the first outlet end (see annotated figure below) but fails to explicitly teach the distance between the fourth and second vertical lines being less than the distance between the second and first vertical lines. However, it is noted that the difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is a change in size. There is no evidence of record that this claimed proportion is critical or produces any unexpended results. In fact, it appears that a device having the claimed proportions would not operate differently than the device disclosed by Chandra. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the distance between the fourth and second vertical lines be less than the distance between the second and first vertical lines since it has been held that changes in size/proportion when the claimed device and a prior art device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (MPEP 2144.04, section IV, paragraph A, “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.”). PNG media_image19.png 565 587 media_image19.png Greyscale Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Culley et al. (US 20080156011) teaches a refrigerator including an ice maker, dispenser, and a chute. Jeong et al. (US 20180164017) teaches a refrigerator including an ice maker, dispenser, and a chute. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J TEITELBAUM whose telephone number is (571)270-5142. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00 am-4:30 pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FRANTZ JULES can be reached on (571) 272-66816681. 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. /DAVID J TEITELBAUM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763