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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-9, 11-12 in the reply filed on 08/07/2025 is acknowledged.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Fong (US 5992299).
Fong discloses in reference to claim:
1.(independent) A bean grinding component with self-cleaning for a coffee machine, comprising: a main component (depicted by figure 1) which comprises a shell (20-outer surface as shown in figure 1), a base (lower portion as shown in Figure 1) and a water tank (22), wherein the base is fixed to the bottom of the shell (evident from figure 1), and the water tank (22) is arranged at one side of the shell; a grinding component (11) which is arranged in the shell (see figure 1) and comprises an inner housing (see figure 1—element 11), a storage tank (see also 11 of figure 1), a grinding piece (13/14 in figure 1), a driving piece (12), a water outlet sprinkler (16a inferred by --hot water is supplied into the top of the container 11 to pass over the freshly prepared coffee grounds and through the base of the container 11 and out the outlet 18 of the holder 16 into the coffee pot 19.), a funnel (16) and a filter screen (17), wherein the inner housing (11-see figure 1) is fixed in the shell; the storage tank (11) is arranged in the inner housing; the grinding piece is arranged in the storage tank (See figure 1); the driving piece (12) is arranged in the shell; the water outlet sprinkler ( at the top of 11) is located above the storage tank (11); the funnel (16) is arranged at the bottom of the storage tank (11); the filter screen is located in the funnel (16); and the water outlet sprinkler, the storage tank (11) and the funnel (16) are communicated.
PNG
media_image1.png
1041
896
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
The Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) identified a number of rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness which are consistent with the proper “functional approach” to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham. The key to supporting any rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is the clear articulation of the reason(s) why the claimed invention would have been obvious. The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should be made explicit.
EXEMPLARY RATIONALES
Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(E) “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AL-Shaibani et al. (US 2017/0119195A1) in view Fong (US 5992299) and Gou et al. (US 2024/0407603A1)
AL-Shaibani discloses in reference to claim:
1.(independent) A bean grinding component with self-cleaning for a coffee machine, comprising: a main component (depicted by figure 3) which comprises a shell (outer surface as shown in figure 3), a base (lower portion as shown in Figure 3) and a water tank (110), wherein the base is fixed to the bottom of the shell (evident from figure 3), and the water tank (110) is arranged at one side of the shell; a grinding component (160) which is arranged in the shell (see figure 3) and comprises an inner housing (see figure 8—element 160), a storage tank (see also 160 of figure 3), a grinding piece (see suggested burr grinder in figure 8), a driving piece (inferred by the burr grinder), a water outlet sprinkler (114), a funnel (180) and a filter screen ([0036]-- The brew chamber 120 can additionally include a coffee filter or receive a coffee filter), wherein the inner housing (160-see figure 3) is fixed in the shell; the storage tank (160) is arranged in the inner housing; the grinding piece is arranged in the storage tank (See figure 2); the driving piece (inferred-see figure 8) is arranged in the shell; the funnel (120) is arranged at the bottom of the storage tank (160, figure 8); the filter screen is located in the funnel (120); and the water outlet sprinkler (114), the storage tank (160) and the funnel (120) are communicated.
AL-Shaibani does not explicitly discloses wherein the water outlet sprinkler (114) is located above the storage tank (of the grinding portion). However, AL-Shaibani discloses: [0031] In one implementation, the water system 110, and the grinder 160 are positioned above the brew chamber 120 so that water and coffee grounds can be deposited into the brew chamber. A cup, carafe, or other receptacle for brewed coffee can be placed underneath the brew chamber 120 or in any suitable position where finished coffee can be deposited into the receptacle. While a gravity based system as described may be used, the system may alternatively use a pressurized system and/or mechanical mechanisms to transport coffee ingredients and product through the system, which may function to alter the footprint, dimensions, or form of the system. The system may use alternative form factors with integrated various subsystems to transport ingredients to different stages of coffee brewing. As shown in FIG. 3, the water system 110 may be positioned alongside the brew chamber 120 and a pump or some other mechanism can transport the water into the brew chamber 120.
Fong discloses a similar coffee grinding/ brewing system wherein the water outlet sprinkler is located above the storage tank (of the grinding portion)—as is described above. One of skill in the art given the disclosure of both AL-Shaibani and Fong would find it obvious to modify the AL-Shaibani device to include providing both the water tank and the water outlet sprinkle above the grinding storage tank such that the water passes through the grinder to extract as much flavor from the beans as possible by rinsing the bean powder residue from the grinding area.
AL-Shaibani in view of Fong discloses the claimed invention except in reference to claim:
2. The bean grinding component with self-cleaning for the coffee machine according to claim 1, wherein the grinding piece comprises a conical grinding disk and a conical grinding center ,the conical grinding disk is fixed at the bottom of the storage tank; and the conical grinding center is located in the conical grinding disk.
Note that AL-Shaibani discloses the use of a burr grinder without discussing the specifics thereof, as such one of skill in the art would look to known burr grinding devices to inform how to make and use the AL-Shaibani device. Gou discloses a burr grinder having a conical grinding disk 26 and a conical grinding center 24 ,the conical grinding disk is fixed at the bottom of the ginder; and the conical grinding center is located in the conical grinding disk.
One of skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide the AL-Shaibani device with the burr grinder as taught by Gou since such a grinder was known in the art.
Gou discloses in reference to claim:
3. The bean grinding component with self-cleaning for the coffee machine according to claim 2, wherein the grinding piece further comprises a connecting shaft (234), a fixing plate (28) and a positioning shaft (162); the connecting shaft (234) is movably connected into the conical grinding center (24); the fixing plate (28) is fixed at the bottom end of the connecting shaft (234); the positioning shaft (162) is fixed at the top of the fixing plate (28); the conical grinding center (24) is provided with a positioning hole (see axial through hole in figure 7); and the positioning shaft (234) is clamped with the positioning hole.
4. The bean grinding component with self-cleaning for the coffee machine according to claim 3, wherein the grinding piece (24) further comprises a connecting rod (a threaded rod (234 top) and a nut (240); the connecting rod (fixed at the top end of the connecting shaft (234); one end of the threaded rod (203g) is fixed with the connecting rod is in threaded connection to the outer side of the threaded rod See figure 7
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-9, 11-12 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art does not teach nor reasonably suggest to one of skill in the art the bean grinding component substantially as claimed and specifically including, inter alia, wherein the grinding piece further comprises a fixing sleeve and a supporting rod; the fixing sleeve is located at the outer side of the connecting shaft; and both ends of the supporting rod are fixed with the fixing sleeve and the inner wall of the storage tank respectively.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOR S CAMPBELL whose telephone number is (571)272-4776. The examiner can normally be reached M,W-F 6:30-10:30, 12-4.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at 5712705569. 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.
/THOR S CAMPBELL/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3761
tsc