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 statement (IDS) submitted on 11/12/2025 was filed after the mailing date of the application on 4/22/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, 12-13, 15, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (KR 100781261) in view of Kim et al (US 6705091).
Regarding claims 1 and 19, Yang teaches a refrigerator (abstract) comprising: a storage compartment (freezer and refrigerator compartment, pg. 2 paragraph 2); an ice-making tray disposed in the storage compartment (pg. 2, paragraph 3) and comprising: a first ice-making tray (110) comprising a first ice-making cell in a hemispherical shape (shape, fig. 2), and a second ice-making tray (120) coupled to the first ice-making tray and comprising a second ice-making cell in a hemispherical shape (shape, fig. 2), wherein the ice-making tray is provided to form a spherical ice-making cell (spherical shape, pg. 3, paragraph 6) by allowing the first ice-making cell and the second ice-making cell to come into contact with each other by coupling the first ice-making tray and the second ice-making tray (pg. 3 paragraph 6); a water supply pipe (understood a pipe would be provided to supply water, pg. 3 paragraph 6) provided to supply water to the ice-making tray; to select a spherical ice production mode or a hemispherical ice production mode (make spherical ice or hemispheric ice by adjusting the water, pg. 7 paragraph 3) but fails to explicitly teach a water supply valve configured to open and close the water supply pipe; a user interface configured to receive a user input to select a spherical ice production mode or a hemispherical ice production mode; memory storing one or more computer programs; and one or more processors communicatively coupled to the user interface, and the memory, wherein the one or more computer programs include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the refrigerator to: control the water supply valve to allow a first amount of water to be supplied to the spherical ice-making cell based on the selection of the spherical ice production mode, and control the water supply valve to allow a second amount of water to be supplied to the spherical ice-making cell based on the selection of the hemispherical ice production mode.
However, Kim teaches a water supply valve (18) configured to open and close the water supply pipe (12); a user interface (32) configured to receive a user input (20) to select a spherical ice production mode or a hemispherical ice production mode (S20, understood the user would select the size); memory storing one or more computer programs (26, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the control unit 26 would include memory as storing programs is well known in the art of refrigeration); and one or more processors (26) communicatively coupled to the user interface (fig. 3-4), and the memory, wherein the one or more computer programs include computer-executable instructions (fig. 4-5) that, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the refrigerator to: control the water supply valve to allow a first amount of water to be supplied to the spherical ice-making cell based on the selection of the spherical ice production mode (cols. 4-5, lines 56-25), and control the water supply valve to allow a second amount of water to be supplied to the spherical ice-making cell based on the selection of the hemispherical ice production mode (cols. 4-5, lines 56-25) to provide the ice size can be controlled easily to be the size desired by a user and the size can be identified visually.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the refrigerator of Yang to include a water supply valve configured to open and close the water supply pipe; a user interface configured to receive a user input to select a spherical ice production mode or a hemispherical ice production mode; memory storing one or more computer programs; and one or more processors communicatively coupled to the user interface, and the memory, wherein the one or more computer programs include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the refrigerator to: control the water supply valve to allow a first amount of water to be supplied to the spherical ice-making cell based on the selection of the spherical ice production mode, and control the water supply valve to allow a second amount of water to be supplied to the spherical ice-making cell based on the selection of the hemispherical ice production mode in view of the teachings of Kim to provide the ice size can be controlled easily to be the size desired by a user and the size can be identified visually.
Regarding claims 2 and 20, the combined teachings teach the first amount of water is an amount of water that allows a level of water supplied to the spherical ice-making cell to reach a water level corresponding to spherical ice so as to allow the spherical ice to be produced in the spherical ice-making cell (pg. 7 paragraph 3 of Yang, cols. 4-5, lines 56-25, figs. 4-5 of Kim), and wherein the second amount of water is an amount of water that allows a level of water supplied to the spherical ice-making cell to reach a water level corresponding to hemispherical ice so as to allow the hemispherical ice to be produced in the spherical ice-making cell (pg. 7 paragraph 3 of Yang, cols. 4-5, lines 56-25, figs. 4-5 of Kim).
Regarding claim 5, the combined teachings teach wherein the first ice-making tray and the second ice-making tray comprise a plurality of ice-making cells (fig. 5 of Yang) formed to allow water to be supplied therein and formed to communicate with each other (fig. 5 of Yang).
Further, it is understood, claim 5 includes an intended use recitation, for example “…to allow to be supplied...”. The applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner which a claimed apparatus is intended to be does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, the claims are directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
Regarding claims 12-13, 15, it is noted that although the preamble of the claims is directed towards a method, the structure of the combined teachings disclose all the structure being provided in the method steps, thus the method is also anticipated by the combined teachings. If a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated or rendered obvious by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently or obviously perform the claimed process. Thus, the method, as claimed, would necessarily result from the normal operation of the apparatus. See MPEP 2112.02.
Claim(s) 3-4, 9-11, 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (KR 100781261) in view of Kim et al (US 6705091) as applied to claim 1 and in further view of Jeong et al (US 20240310103).
Regarding claim 3, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach a flow sensor configured to detect the amount of water supplied to the ice-making tray.
However, Jeong teaches a flow sensor (51b) configured to detect the amount of water supplied to the ice-making tray (paragraph 0093) to detect the amount of water being supplied to the ice making device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the refrigerator of combined teachings to include a flow sensor configured to detect the amount of water supplied to the ice-making tray in view of the teachings of Jeong to detect the amount of water being supplied to the ice making device.
Regarding claim 4, the combined teachings teach the one or more computer programs further include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the refrigerator to: control the water supply valve to allow an amount of water detected by the flow sensor to reach the first amount of water based on the selection of the spherical ice production mode (pg. 7 paragraph 3 of Yang, cols. 4-5, lines 56-25, figs. 4-5 of Kim, paragraph 0093-0096 of Jeong); and control the water supply valve to allow an amount of water detected by the flow sensor to reach the second amount of water based on the selection of the hemispherical ice production mode (pg. 7 paragraph 3 of Yang, cols. 4-5, lines 56-25, figs. 4-5 of Kim, paragraph 0093-0096 of Jeong).
Regarding claim 9, the combined teachings teach an ice maker (104 of Kim) comprising a heater (106 of Kim), wherein the one or more computer programs further include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the refrigerator to: perform a heating process (co. 1, lines 44-50 of Kim) for controlling a transparency (2210 of Jeong) of spherical ice by the heater before an ice-making process (2220 of Jeong) of the spherical ice production mode, and not to perform the heating process before an ice-making process of the hemispherical ice production mode (understood 2210 is capable of not being performed).
Regarding claim 10, the combined teachings teach the one or more computer programs further include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the refrigerator to: wait for a first ice movement waiting time in the ice-making process of the spherical ice production mode (fig. 4 of Yang, pg. 7 paragraph 3 of Yang, cols. 4-5, lines 56-25, figs. 4-5 of Kim); and wait for a second ice movement waiting time in the ice-making process of the hemispherical ice production mode (fig. 4 of Yang, pg. 7 paragraph 3 of Yang, cols. 4-5, lines 56-25, figs. 4-5 of Kim).
Regarding claim 11, the combined teachings teach the second ice movement waiting time is set to be longer than the first ice movement waiting time (understood the movement would take longer to form spherical ice vs. hemispherical ice, pg. 7 paragraph 3 of Yang, cols. 4-5, lines 56-25, figs. 4-5 of Kim).
Regarding claims 14-15, it is noted that although the preamble of the claims is directed towards a method, the structure of the combined teachings disclose all the structure being provided in the method steps, thus the method is also anticipated by the combined teachings. If a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated or rendered obvious by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently or obviously perform the claimed process. Thus, the method, as claimed, would necessarily result from the normal operation of the apparatus. See MPEP 2112.02.
Claim(s) 6-8, 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (KR 100781261) in view of Kim et al (US 6705091) as applied to claim 1 and in further view of Son et al (US 20130014536).
Regarding claim 6, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach a communication portion provided to allow the plurality of ice-making cells to communicate with each other is formed in at least one of the first ice-making tray and the second ice-making tray, and wherein the communication portion is provided to allow water, which is introduced into one ice-making cell among the plurality of ice-making cells, to move to an adjacent ice-making cell.
However, Son teaches a communication portion (151) provided to allow the plurality of ice-making cells to communicate with each other is formed in at least one of the first ice-making tray and the second ice-making tray (paragraph 0073), and wherein the communication portion is provided to allow water, which is introduced into one ice-making cell (114) among the plurality of ice-making cells, to move to an adjacent ice-making cell (fig. 6) to provide the water may be quickly supplied into each of the shells and simultaneously supplied without overflowing.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the refrigerator of combined teachings to include a communication portion provided to allow the plurality of ice-making cells to communicate with each other is formed in at least one of the first ice-making tray and the second ice-making tray, and wherein the communication portion is provided to allow water, which is introduced into one ice-making cell among the plurality of ice-making cells, to move to an adjacent ice-making cell in view of the teachings of to provide the water may be quickly supplied into each of the shells and simultaneously supplied without overflowing.
Regarding claim 7, the combined teachings teach wherein the communication portion is disposed at a center of the plurality of ice-making cells (fig. 6 of Kim).
Regarding claim 8, the combined teachings teach the one or more computer programs further include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the refrigerator to supply an amount of water to the communication portion to allow hemispherical ice to be produced in the spherical ice-making cell (pg. 7 paragraph 3 of Yang, cols. 4-5, lines 56-25, figs. 4-5 of Kim).
Regarding claims 16-18, it is noted that although the preamble of the claims is directed towards a method, the structure of the combined teachings disclose all the structure being provided in the method steps, thus the method is also anticipated by the combined teachings. If a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated or rendered obvious by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently or obviously perform the claimed process. Thus, the method, as claimed, would necessarily result from the normal operation of the apparatus. See MPEP 2112.02.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH J MARTIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3840. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-3:00 CT pm M-F.
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.
/ELIZABETH J MARTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights