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
The claim to priority to KR 10-2023-0049221, filed on April 14, 2023 is acknowledged in the instant application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because reference “1000” (Fig. 1), “100” (Fig. 4), and “300” (Fig. 5) are missing an arrow pointed to the part (see example reference “200” in Fig. 1). “Lead lines are required for each reference character except for those which indicate the surface or cross section on which they are placed. Such a reference character must be underlined to make it clear that a lead line has not been left out by mistake.” See 37CFR1.84(q). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is more than 150 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hwang (KR 10-2096738) (new cited).
Regarding claim 1, Hwang discloses a coffee tamper comprising: a compressing part (plate 32) having a compressing surface for compressing ground beans (C) accommodated in a porter filter (100); a main body part (Fig. 1 below), which accommodates at least a portion of the compressing part (32) and has a bottom part accommodating an upper side of the compressing surface; an operation part (31) having at least one connection part that protrudes inside the main body part and configured to slide in a first direction; and a button part (20) disposed on an upper side of the operation part (31) and receiving an external force from a user, wherein the operation part has a plurality of insertion protrusion (needle 35), and the compression surface has a plurality of through holes (51) corresponding to the plurality of insertion protrusion (35), and wherein the plurality of insertion protrusions (35) are accommodates inside the main body part in a first state and the plurality of insertion protrusions (35) are exposed outside the main body part through the through holes (51) in a second state when the operation part (31) slides along the first direction (Fig. 1-3; Par. 14-22).
Regarding claim 2, Hwang discloses each of the plurality of through holes (51) has a different distance from a center point of the compressing surface (via compressing part 32) (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 3, Hwang discloses the operation part (31) includes a rim part (Fig. below), which exposed outside the main body part and configured to receive pressure in the first direction (Fig. 1-2).
Regarding claim 4, Hwang discloses the operation part (31) further includes a support surface, which is space apart from an inner circumference of the rim part and is configured to support the button part (20) (Fig. 1-2).
Regarding claim 9, Hwang discloses the compressing part (32) includes a coupling rod (34), which protrudes toward the button part (20) and receives the external force from the button part, the button part includes a coupling hole into which the coupling rod (34) is inserted, and when the coupling rod (34) and the coupling hole are coupled, the compressing part and the button part are couple (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 11, Hwang discloses the coffee tamper (Fig. 1) is configured to be rotated with respect to the porter filter (200), and the plurality of insertion protrusions (needle 35) mix the ground beans (C) (Fig. 3).
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.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang (KR 10-2096738) (new cited).
Regarding claim 7, Hwang discloses substantially all features of the claimed invention as set forth above including the button part (20) and the operation part (31) couple in the first state, the button part (20) is coupled to move along the first direction with the compressing part (plate 32), and when a predetermined external force is applied to the button part (20) in the first state and the button part (20), the operation part (31), and the compressing part (32) descend, the compressing surface compress the ground beans (C) except the button part detachably coupled. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the button part and the operation part are detachably coupled, since it was been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04 VC).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6, 8, 10 and 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
PNG
media_image1.png
446
683
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNG D NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7828. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9AM - 9PM.
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, Edward Landrum can be reached at (571)272-5567. 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.
/HUNG D NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
HUNG D. NGUYEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3761