DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/14/2025 has been entered.
Notice to Applicant
This action is in reply to the filed on 10/14/2025.
Claims 5 and 14 have been amended.
Claims 1-4 and 6-7 have been cancelled.
Claim 5 and 8-14 currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendments
The Applicant’s amendments, and cancellation, of the claims as currently submitted have been noted by the Examiner. Said amendments, and cancellation(s), are not sufficient to overcome the rejections previously set forth under 35 U.S.C. §101 and 35 U.S.C. §103, respectively. As such, said rejections are herein maintained for reasons set forth below.
The Applicant’s amendments, and cancellation, of the claims as currently submitted have been noted by the Examiner. Said amendments, and cancellation(s), are not sufficient to overcome the rejections previously set forth under 35 U.S.C. §103. As such, said rejections are herein maintained for reasons set forth below.
With the amendment of claims 5 and 14, and the cancellation of claims 1-4 and 6-7, applicant has successfully overcome the Examiner’s 35 USC 101 rejection and Examiner withdraws his 35 USC 101 rejection.
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.
Claims 5 and 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jessiman 2016 (Reference U), in view of Walczak (US 2016/0270597), further in view of Adams (US 2018/0058909).
CLAIM 5
As per claim 5, Jessiman 2016 disclose(s):
a digital herb scale (Jessiman 2016, pp 1-2) have a second mode to calculate weight of the herbs, the digital herb scale comprising:
a top part (Jessiman 2016, pp 1-2) comprising:
a lid member having a ledge (Jessiman 2016, pp 1-2),
a top housing unit (Jessiman 2016, pp 1-2),
a bottom part (Jessiman 2016, pp 1-2) comprising:
a bottom housing unit (Jessiman 2016, pp 1-2)
a scale plate embedded within the bottom housing unit, the scale plate having area that has a snug fit connection with said ledge of said lid member (Jessiman 2016, pp 1-2),
an electronic scale arranged such that to measure pressure on said scale plate (Jessiman 2016, pp 1-2),
a power module (Jessiman 2016, pp 1-2), and
wherein in the second mode to operate the scale, the bottom part is set upon the top part so that the ledge of the lid member fits the embedded area on the bottom part (Jessiman 2016, pp 1-2)
wherein, weight of the herbs on said digital herb scale is derived from pressure on said scale plate from said lid member that said scale plate is placed thereupon (Jessiman 2016, pp 1-2)
digital herb scale (Jessiman 2016, pp 1-2).
Jessiman 2016 fail to expressly disclose:
a combined herb grinder having a first mode to grind herbs, the combined herb grinder comprising:
a top grinding plate
a bottom grinding plate
wherein in the first mode to operate the combined herb grinder, the top part is set upon the bottom part, wherein the top grinding plate and the bottom grinding plate are used to grind herbs.
However, Walczak teaches:
a combined herb grinder (Walczak, Figure 3, Figure 4) having a first mode to grind herbs, the combined herb grinder comprising:
a top grinding plate (Walczak, Figure 3)
a bottom grinding plate (Walczak, Figure 4)
wherein in the first mode to operate the combined herb grinder, the top part is set upon the bottom part, wherein the top grinding plate and the bottom grinding plate are used to grind herbs (Walczak, Figure 3, Figure 4).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to include “a combined herb grinder having a first mode to grind herbs,” etc. as taught by Walczak within the apparatus as taught by the Jessiman 2016 with the motivation of providing prevent injury when operating electronic herb grinding devices (Walczak, [0002]-[0005]).
Jessiman 2016 and Walczak further disclose:
wherein the lid member top housing unit (Jessiman 2016, pp 1-2) and top grinding (Walczak, Figure 3 ) are formed as a unitary body (Jessiman 2016, pp 1-2)
wherein the bottom grinding plate (Walczak, Figure 4), the bottom housing unit, the electronic scale are formed as a unitary body (Jessiman 2016, pp 1-2).
Jessiman 2016 and Walczak fail to expressly teach:
a microprocessor
a communication module.
However, Adams teaches:
a microprocessor (Adams, [0032])
a communication module (Adams, [0038]).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made would have found it obvious to include “a microprocessor,” etc. as taught by Adams with the apparatus as taught by Jessiman 2016 and Walczak with the motivation of providing weight measurements for harvested products that must be measured at an extremely accurate rate (Adams, [0003]).
CLAIM 8
As per claim 8, Jessiman 2016, Walczak and Adams
teach the apparatus of claim 5 and further disclose the limitations of:
wherein the top part and bottom part have a hexagonal shape (Jessiman 2016, pp 1-2).
Examiner Note: Recitation of a hexagonal shape is a design choice with no patent distinguishing function or attribute. See JP20001502A, JP200326151A.
CLAIM 9
As per claim 9, Jessiman 2016, Walczak and Adams
teach the apparatus of claim 5 and further disclose the limitations of:
wherein the top grinding plate is removable for cleaning purposes (Walczak, Figure 4).
The obviousness of combining the teachings of Walczak with the apparatus as taught by Jessiman 2016 is discussed in the rejection of claim 5, and incorporated herein.
CLAIM 10
As per claim 10, Jessiman 2016, Walczak and Adams
teach the apparatus of claim 5 and further disclose the limitations of:
wherein the bottom grinding plate is removable for cleaning purposes (Walczak, Figure 4).
The obviousness of combining the teachings of Walczak with the apparatus as taught by Jessiman 2016 is discussed in the rejection of claim 5, and incorporated herein.
CLAIM 11
As per claim 11, Jessiman 2016, Walczak and Adams
teach the apparatus of claim 5 and further disclose the limitations of:
wherein the bottom housing unit is a tubular casing member(Jessiman 2016, pp 1-2).
Examiner Note: Recitation of a hexagonal shape is a design choice with no patent distinguishing function or attribute. See JP20001502A, JP200326151A.
Claims 12-14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jessiman 2016 (Reference U), in view of Walczak (US 2016/0270597), further in view of Adams (US 2018/0058909), further in view of Seckel et al. (US 2017/0319009).
CLAIM 12
As per claim 12, Jessiman 2016, Walczak and Adams
teach the apparatus of claim 5.
Jessiman 2016, Walczak and Adams do not teach:
wherein the bottom part further comprises a printed circuit board (PCB).
However, Seckel et al. teach:
wherein the bottom part further comprises a printed circuit board (PCB) (Seckel et al., Figure 12, [0053] PCB).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to include “wherein the bottom part further comprises a printed circuit board (PCB),” etc. as taught by Seckel et al. with the apparatus as taught by Jessiman 2016, Walczak and Adams with the motivation of providing an apparatus for grinding, storing, transporting, and dispensing herbs, (Seckel et al., [0002])
CLAIM 13
As per claim 13, Jessiman 2016, Walczak, Adams and Seckel et al.
teach the apparatus of claim 12 and further disclose the limitations of:
wherein the bottom part further comprises a battery (Seckel et al., [0131] battery).
The obviousness of combining the teachings of Seckel et al. with the apparatus as taught by Jessiman 2016, Walczak and Adams are discussed in the rejection of claim 5, and incorporated herein.
CLAIM 14
As per claim 14, Jessiman 2016, Walczak, Adams and Seckel et al. teach the apparatus of claim 13 and further disclose the limitations of:
wherein the printed circuit board (PCB) and the battery are mounted under a connecting plate, wherein the connecting plate that holds the bottom grinding plate on the top side and holds the PCB on the bottom (Seckel et al., Figure 12, [0053] PCB).
Examiner Note: The configuration of the PCB board and battery is a design choice with no patent distinguishing function or attribute.
The obviousness of combining the teachings of Seckel et al. with the apparatus as taught by Jessiman 2016, Walczak and Adams are discussed in the rejection of claim 5, and incorporated herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 10/14/2025 with respect to claims 5 and 8-14 have been fully considered and they are partially persuasive. Applicant’s arguments will be addressed herein below in the order in which they appear in the response filed 10/14/2025.
Applicant’s arguments filed on 10/14/2025 with respect to claims 5 and 8-14 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Applicant argues that (A) Jessiman 2016, Walczak, Adams and Chu do not render obvious the present invention because Jessiman 2016, Walczak, Adams and Chu do not disclose “the combined digital herb scale and herb grinder,” etc. in the previously presented and/or presently amended claims, (B) the Applicant’s claimed invention is directed to statutory matter.
103 Responses
In response to Applicant’s argument (A), it is respectfully submitted that the Examiner has applied/recited new passages and citations to amended claims 5 and 14 at the present time. The Examiner notes that the amended limitations were not in the previously pending claims. As such, Applicant’s remarks with regard to the application of Jessiman 2016, Walczak, Adams and Chu to the amended limitations are addressed above in the Office Action.
Prior Art
Prior art made of record though not relied upon in the present basis of rejection are noted in the attached PTO-892 and include:
Ormaza et al. (US 2010/0301806) disclose a rechargeable electric herb grinder comprising a grinder housing having one or more of housing compartments attachable to each other along a separating joint, a grinding chamber for receiving an herb, the grinding chamber being formed inside the grinder housing by the housing compartments and a spacer, an electric motor separated from the grinding chamber by the spacer, the spacer being rigidly coupled to the electric motor, a driven shaft mounted and received in the grinder chamber through an aperture in the spacer for rotation of a grinding means mounted on the driven shaft by the power provided by the electric motor, the grinding means being utilized to grind the herb, an internal rechargeable battery located outside of the grinding chamber, the internal rechargeable battery having first conductors to provide electric current to the electric motor, a recharging plug coupled to the grinding housing to recharge the internal rechargeable battery and having second conductors for connecting to an external power supply, thereby enabling recharging of the internal rechargeable battery, and a two-condition control switch, a relay having at least one pair of openable and closable contacts, and third conductors electrically interconnecting the electric motor, the two-condition control switch and the relay with the internal rechargeable battery.
Staiano et al. (US 2020/0367695) disclose a device and system for grinding herbs, tobacco, leaves and the like. The herb grinder system herein includes a snap together configuration. The lid is provided with magnets positioned around an upper shoulder. These magnets cooperate with secondary magnets positioned around the upper perimeter of the body to hold the lid in place for use, and when not being used for grinding.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES P. COLEMAN whose telephone number is (571) 270-7788. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday 7:30a-5:00p.
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, ROBERT W MORGAN can be reached on (571) 272-6773. 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.
/C. P. C./
Examiner, Art Unit 3683
/ROBERT W MORGAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3683
Prosecution Insights