Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/232,368

Adjusting Mechanism and Grinder Using Same

Non-Final OA §102§112
Filed
Aug 10, 2023
Examiner
BETIT, JACOB F
Art Unit
3725
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Ningbo Chefshere Kitchen Technology Co. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
35%
Grant Probability
At Risk
1-2
OA Rounds
4y 11m
To Grant
51%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 35% of cases
35%
Career Allow Rate
53 granted / 151 resolved
-34.9% vs TC avg
Strong +16% interview lift
Without
With
+16.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 11m
Avg Prosecution
27 currently pending
Career history
178
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
11.2%
-28.8% vs TC avg
§103
42.6%
+2.6% vs TC avg
§102
23.4%
-16.6% vs TC avg
§112
19.9%
-20.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 151 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §112
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 . Drawings The drawings are objected to because poor quality and difficult to recognize the details. 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. Claim Objections Claim 1 and 11-12 objected to because of the following informalities: Regarding claim 1, in line 7 the phrase “the guide ring move axially;” should be changed to “the guide ring moves axially.”. Regarding claim 11, in line 1 the phrase “wherein the grinder also comprises a powder bin” should be changed to “wherein the grinder further comprising a powder bin”. Regarding claim 12, in line 1 the phrase “A grinder, comprising a material bin and a grinding base and a grinding wheel which are arranged in the material bin” should be changed to “A grinder, comprising a material bin, a grinding base and a grinding wheel; wherein the grinding base and the grinding wheel are arranged in the material bin”. 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. Claims 1-14 and 13-14 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Regarding claim 1, in lines 6-7 the phrase “the grinding base adjusting ring drives the rotating ring to rotate when rotating so as to drive the guide ring move axially” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear why “the guide ring move axially”, what the grinding element been adjusted when “the guide ring move axially”. Claims 2-11 are rejected because they depend from claim 1. Claim 5 recites the limitation "the top" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 5 recites the limitation "the lower" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 6 recites the limitation "the side wall" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 6 recites the limitation "the outer side" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 6 recites the limitation "the inner side" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Regarding claim 6, in line 7 the phrase “when rotating” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear which element is “rotating”. Claim 7 recites the limitation "the outer side wall" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 7 recites the limitation "the inner side wall" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 8 recites the limitation "the outer side" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 10 recites the limitation " the bottom" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 10 recites the limitation " the top" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Regarding claim 10, in line 2 the phrase “a fourth internal thread” render the claim indefinite because claim 10 depends from claim 9 and claim 9 depends from claim 1; however, none of the claims 9 and 1 recited “a first, a second and a third internal thread”; So, it is unclear why having “a fourth internal thread” without “a first, a second and a third internal thread”. Claim 11 recites the limitation "the top" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Regarding claim 11, in line 2 the phrase “a fifth internal thread” render the claim indefinite because claim 11 depends from claim 9 and claim 9 depends from claim 1; however, none of the claims 9 and 1 recited “a first, a second, a third and a fourth internal thread”; So, it is unclear why having “a fourth internal thread” without “a first, a second, a third and a fourth internal thread”. Claim 12 recites the limitation " the position" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 12 recites the limitation " the position" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 13-14 are rejected because they depend from claim 12. Regarding claim 13, in lines 1-2 the phrase “he grinder according to claim 12, wherein the grinding base adjusting mechanism is the adjusting mechanism of claim 1” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear if claim 14 depend from claim 12 or claim 1. Claim 14 recites the limitation " the lower end" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 14 recites the limitation " the top" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Regarding claim 14, in line 10 the phrase “when rotating” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear which element is “rotating”. 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 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen (CN216724269U attached NPL, English Machine translation). Regarding claim 12, Chen discloses a grinder, comprising a material bin (fig.3) and a grinding base (fig.5: (22)) and a grinding wheel (fig.5: (221)) which are arranged in the material bin, and further comprising a grinding wheel adjusting mechanism used for adjusting the position of the grinding wheel (paragraph 0036) and a grinding base adjusting mechanism used for adjusting the position of the grinding base (paragraph 0031). Allowable Subject Matter The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claims 1 and 13, the closet prior art is Chen (CN216724269U), however in the opinion of the Examiner that the arts of record neither anticipates nor render obvious the limitation of “herein the rotating ring is movably connected with the fixed ring through threads, the guide ring is movably connected with the rotating ring through threads, the fixed ring is provided with a guide piece used for moving the guide ring axially, the grinding base adjusting ring is connected with the rotating ring, and the grinding base adjusting ring drives the rotating ring to rotate when rotating so as to drive the guide ring move axially” in combination with the other limitations of the claim. Claims 2-11 are depended from claim 1. Claims 14 is depended from claim 13. Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. Claim 13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED S ALAWADI whose telephone number is (571)272-2224. The examiner can normally be reached 08:00 am- 05:00 pm. 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, CHRISTOPHER TEMPLETON can be reached at (571)270-1477. 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. /MOHAMMED S. ALAWADI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 10, 2023
Application Filed
Jun 29, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112
Sep 22, 2025
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 9339688
CORE EXERCISE APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted May 17, 2016
Patent 9043275
DATA SYNCHRONIZATION USING STRING MATCHING
2y 5m to grant Granted May 26, 2015
Patent 9026539
RANKING SUPERVISED HASHING
2y 5m to grant Granted May 05, 2015
Patent 9020954
RANKING SUPERVISED HASHING
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 28, 2015
Patent 8819054
INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS, METHOD FOR PROCESSING INFORMATION, AND STORAGE MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Aug 26, 2014
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
35%
Grant Probability
51%
With Interview (+16.3%)
4y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 151 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month