DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 8/28/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/30/2025 in response to Office Action 8/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for at least the following reason:
Regarding claim 17, Applicant again argues that there is no reason for primary prior art Beber to have the claimed surface roughness, especially since Applicant discloses a solved need to reduce triboelectric effect resulting from the roughness (pages 8-9). Examiner disagrees, pointing out that there is a reason cited and no criticality of said effect (Spec page 3, lines 31-32, “triboelectric effect between two surfaces can increase with surface roughness” (i.e. maybe/potentially/could) is not an explicit disclosure, and the effect is merely the necessary result of polishing to that roughness). In response to all arguments, which are all intended use arguments, examiner points out that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure (roughness) is capable of performing the intended use (triboelectric effect), then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues unexpected results from the triboelectric effect (page 9, line 4). However, examiner points out that since that effect is from the claimed “polished stainless steel” the argument is intended use, as above. Applicant also states that Beber only uses wet coffee grounds. However, Beber uses dry coffee grounds ([0042] “dry ingredients, such as coffee grounds, are added to the inner vessel 140”).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 8, “the inwardly facing surface” should read “an inwardly facing surface” and so then line 13 “an inwardly facing surface” should read “the inwardly facing surface”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 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.
Claims 17-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub 20160255989 by Beber et al. (hereinafter “Beber”) in view of NPL ISO standard surface roughness of polish by AMF Technologies (hereinafter “AMF”) in view of US Pat 6968888 issued to Kolowich (hereinafter “Kolowich”).
Regarding claim 17, Beber teaches a coffee grounds collector (Fig 9, [0043], a grounds collector is a coffee press apparatus 10 with an outer container 12 and an inner vessel 140 that receives coffee grounds; [0042] “dry ingredients, such as coffee grounds, are added to the inner vessel 140”) for transferring dry coffee grounds from a bean grinding apparatus to a filter for use in a machine for brewing coffee (necessarily capable of this use i.e. without its lid with a grinding apparatus (wherein the type is not explicitly disclosed by Applicant); examiner notes “a filter” is being claimed to be used in “a machine”, so the collector is not used in the machine, all as disclosed by Applicant, page 4, para last), the grounds collector comprising:
a receptacle (10) with an inner wall (140, of “stainless steel”, [0039]) and an outer wall (12), the inner wall is spaced from the outer wall (Fig 9 shows 140 spaced from 12); and
a connecting portion located at an upper end of the coffee grounds collector (Fig 9, [0039] a connecting portion at an upper end of 140/12 is 146); wherein
an inwardly facing surface of the inner wall defines a hollow within the receptacle (Fig 9, a hollow is cavity 140A of 140, and defines a contacting inwardly facing surface); and wherein
a bottom portion of the inner wall includes a central portion (Figs 11C, a bottom central portion of bottom wall 148);
a lower portion of the inwardly facing surface of the inner wall forms a continuously concave surface (Figs 11C, a lower portion of the inward surface is the inward surface of bottom wall 148 that is shown surrounding its central planar area (i.e. surrounding the bottom portion), and the lower portion is shown as continuous and concave).
But Beber does not explicitly teach the connecting portion (Figs 8B & 9, 146) including a weld joining the inner wall to the outer wall.
Beber, however, discloses welding as a mechanical/electrical option for coupling the inner wall (140) to the outer wall (12) at the connecting portion ([0039] “weld” between stainless steel; and “The inner vessel 140 is contemplated to be comprised of a metallic material, such as stainless steel, and is contemplated to be coupled to the sidewall 14 of the outer container 12”; [0057] “the term “coupled”…means the joining of two components (electrical or mechanical) directly or indirectly…as a single unitary body…such joining may be permanent”).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the connecting portion/coupling of the inner wall to the outer wall to be a weld as it is no more than a simple substitution of one mechanical/electrical coupling for another that is known in the art for joining components and would only produce the predictable results of a permanent coupling. MPEP 2143 I-B.
But Beber does not explicitly teach the inner wall’s inwardly facing surface (of 140) is a particular stainless steel.
However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Beber ([0034] container 12, lid assembly and plunger “made from a polished stainless steel” for “a [more] pleasing aesthetic for a user”) before them at the time the application was filed, to use polished stainless steel as the inner wall, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
But Beber does not explicitly teach a particular roughness range of inner wall inwardly facing surface (polished though it is, above).
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to, having the teachings of AMF ISO standard (shown covering the entire roughness range in micrometers), optimize and arrive at an inner wall inward surface roughness Ra of less than 0.8 µm or less than 0.2 µm, recognizing that decreased surface roughness is directly correlated to an increase in aesthetic desirability (as cited in Beber, above; e.g. shinier if more polished/less roughness) and decrease in amount of contents retained on the surface thereby reducing waste of contents (more polished, less surface tension “sticking” of contents), which is a desirable characteristic, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation. Also, the roughness appears to be merely product by process of “polished stainless steel”. MPEP 2113 I.
But Beber/AMF does not explicitly teach that the inwardly facing surface of the bottom central portion is planar, or a particular diameter range proportion of the inner wall bottom inwardly facing central planar portion.
Kolowich, however, teaches a similar holding cup comprising:
a bottom portion of the inwardly facing surface of the inner wall includes a central planar portion (Fig 1, an inwardly facing surface portion of bottom 14 of an inner wall 16 (a top surface of 14) is shown planar and central; and
col 4, lines 36-42, the central planar portion is about 43% less diameter than a diameter of vessel 10, since the central planar portion has a diameter of about 1.5 inches (2.75 inches minus 5/8 inch thickness 28 twice), and a diameter of an upper rim 24 is about 3.5 inches).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to scale the bottom inward face central portion, since it has been held that 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. MPEP 2144.04 IV-A.
Also, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, having the reduced diameter of Kolowich, to optimize and arrive at a central planar portion diameter less than 25% of the maximum diameter of the inner wall of the grounds collector receptacle, recognizing that a decrease in inner diameter is directly correlated to a steeper angle thereby increasing concentration of grounds helping compression ofr increased efficiency during press (Beber’s press) while also making the receptacle easier to clean from less surface area than a regular corner (e.g. Kolowich), which are desirable characteristics, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 18, Beber/AMF/Kolowich does not explicitly teach a particular radius of curvature of the inwardly facing surface of the inner wall (Beber, Figs 8B, 10A & 11C, a radius of curvature is at label 148) is greater than 5 mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, having the inner wall inwardly facing surface radius of Beber and a much smaller inner wall inwardly facing surface radius of Kolowich (about a fraction of an inch abutting the central planar portion of 14 and wall 16), to optimize and arrive at a radius of curvature of the inner wall greater than 5 mm, recognizing that an increase in diameter is directly correlated to storing more contents thereby increasing the amount brewable as desired, which is a desirable characteristic, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 20, Beber/AMF/Kolowich further teaches the roughness measured as Ra of the inwardly facing surface of the inner wall is less than 0.2 µm (AMF, see range above). See details in the parent claim 17 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Claims 33-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub 20160255989 by Beber et al. (hereinafter “Beber”) in view of US Pat 6968888 issued to Kolowich (hereinafter “Kolowich”) in view of NPL ISO standard surface roughness of polish by AMF Technologies (hereinafter “AMF”) in view of US Pub 20080286417 by Piotrowski et al. (hereinafter “Piotrowski”).
Regarding claim 33, Beber/AMF/Kolowich further teaches the inwardly facing surface of the inner wall comprises a polished material (Beber/AMF, see motivation and citation of claim 17 for “polished”),
But does not explicitly teach the material is polymeric (Beber, [0058] “any suitable material can be used”).
Piotrowski, however, teaches a container of polymeric material (Piotrowski, [0059] “polymethylmethacrylate” or “safety glass” (which is a silicate glass)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Piotrowski before them at the time the application was filed, to change the material of the container/cup, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use (Piotrowski [0065], to hold ground coffee, and keep it fresher longer) as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 34, Beber/AMF/Kolowich/Piotrowski further teaches the polished polymeric material comprises a polished acrylic comprising one of: poly methyl methacrylate (Piotrowski, see material in claim 33); and poly methyl 2-methylpropenoate. See details in the parent claim 33 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Regarding claim 35, Beber/AMF/Kolowich/Piotrowski further teaches the inwardly facing surface of the inner wall comprises a polished silicate glass (Piotrowski, see material in claim 33). See details in the parent claim 33 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC C BALDRIGHI whose telephone number is (571)272-4948. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 EST.
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, Nathan Jenness can be reached on 5712705055. 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.
/ERIC C BALDRIGHI/Examiner, Art Unit 3733