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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argued that “in view of the above amendments, this application is now considered to be in condition for allowance”.
In response to this argument, Applicant should submit an argument under the heading “Remarks” pointing out disagreements with the examiner’s contentions. Applicant must also discuss the references applied against the claims, explaining how the claims avoid the references or distinguish from them. The new claims amendments do not place this application in condition of allowance, see 102 and 103 rejections below.
Accordingly, this argument is not persuasive.
Claim Objections
Claim 1, 6, 8 and 25 objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, in line 5 the phrase “CBG-where the setting of the MAA changes mechanical processing” should be changed to “CBG, wherein the setting of the MAA changes a mechanical processing”.
Regarding claim 6, the phrase “directed to brew unit” should be changed to “directed to the brew unit”.
Regarding claim 8, the phrase “where the intermediary gear” should be changed to “CBG, wherein the intermediary gear”.
Regarding claim 25, the phrase “to mechanically engage the plurality of teeth of the intermediary gear” should be changed to “to mechanically engage the teeth of the intermediary gear”.
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 1-8 and 21-27 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 line 5 the phrase “including” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by “including”.
As best understood and for the purpose of the examination the Examiner interpreted “including” as “the (MAA) including”.
Claims 2-8 are rejected because they depend from claim 1.
Regarding claim 21, in lines 6 and 11 the phrase “via its teeth” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by “via its teeth”.
As best understood and for the purpose of the examination the Examiner interpreted “via its teeth” as “via the plurality of teeth”.
Claims 22-27 are rejected because they depend from claim 21.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Teahan (US20160220067A1).
Regarding claim 1, Teahan discloses a coffee generating system (CGS) for brewing coffee from coffee beans, the CGS including:
a coffee bean grinder (CBG) (fig.1: grinder (100)) for grinding coffee beans, the grinder including a system for setting a mechanically adjustable attribute (MAA) (paragraph 0024: adjusting the particle size) of (CBG) (fig.1: grinder (100)) where the setting of the MAA changes mechanical processing of coffee beans by the CBG (abstract, claim 1 and paragraphs 0017-0025 and 0037-0038), including:
an adjusting motor (fig.1: (71)) mechanically coupled to the CBG so that when the motor is activated, the MVAA is adjusted;
a sensor (fig.1: (72)) mechanically coupled to the CBG, the sensor configured to detect the adjustment of the MAA; and
a controller (fig.1: (16)) electrically coupled the adjusting motor and the sensor to controllably adjust the MAA via the adjusting motor to a desired setting.
Regarding claim 2, Teahan discloses wherein the controller adjusts the MAA via the adjusting motor and the sensor to a desired coffee been grind setting within a predetermined tolerance (paragraphs0022, 0038 and claim 15).
Regarding claim 4, Teahan discloses wherein the controller adjusts the MAA via the adjusting motor and the sensor to one of a fixed number of levels (paragraphs 0022, 0038 and claim 15).
Regarding claim 5, Teahan discloses further including a brew unit (paragraph 0037 and claim 13)
Regarding claim 6, Teahan discloses wherein the coffee beans processed by the CBG are directed to brew unit (paragraph 0027 and claim 13).
Regarding claim 7, Teahan discloses wherein the controller determines the coffee beans grinding size via the sensor (paragraph 0024).
Regarding claim 8, Teahan discloses includes a grinder motor (fig.1: (3)) and an intermediary gear (fig.1: (20)) is rotatable to set different coffee beans grind levels (paragraphs 0018 and 0027).
Claims 1, 5 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Anson (US20070187534A1).
Regarding claim 1, Anson discloses a coffee generating system (CGS) for brewing coffee from coffee beans, the CGS including:
a coffee bean grinder (CBG) (fig.1: grinder (20)) for grinding coffee beans, the grinder including a system for setting a mechanically adjustable attribute (MAA) (paragraph 0026) of (CBG) (fig.1: grinder (20)) where the setting of the MAA changes mechanical processing of coffee beans by the CBG (abstract and paragraphs 0200-0029), including:
an adjusting motor (fig.2: (68)) mechanically coupled to the CBG so that when the motor is activated, the MVAA is adjusted;
a sensor (fig.4: (92)) mechanically coupled to the CBG, the sensor configured to detect the adjustment of the MAA; and
a controller (fig.1: (82)) electrically coupled the adjusting motor and the sensor to controllably adjust the MAA via the adjusting motor to a desired setting.
Regarding claim 5, Anson discloses further including a brew unit (paragraph 0020 and 0025)
Regarding claim 8, Anson discloses wherein the PPS includes a grinder motor (fig.1: (44)) and an intermediary gear (fig.4.: (56)), where the intermediary gear rotatable to set different coffee bean grind levels (paragraphs 0024, 0027 and 0031-0033).
Regarding claim 9, Anson discloses wherein the adjusting motor (fig.4: (68)) is mechanically coupled to the intermediary gear (fig.4: (64)).
Regarding claim 10, Anson discloses wherein the sensor (fig.4.: (92)) is mechanically coupled to the intermediary gear (fig.4.: (56)) (paragraphs 0029-0030).
Regarding claim 11, Anson discloses wherein the intermediary gear (fig.4.: (56)) includes teeth and the adjusting motor includes a gear (fig.4.: (66)) with teeth sized to mechanically engage the teeth of the intermediary gear (paragraph 0024).
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.
Claims 3, 12-13 and 21-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Anson (US20070187534A1).
Regarding claims 3, Anson does not disclose wherein the sensor includes a potentiometer;
However, Anson discloses wherein the sensor (fig.4: (92)) mechanically engage the teeth of the intermediary gear (fig.4: (56)); and
The sensor can be physical sensor, the sensors may be in the form of electrical, magnetic or optical sensors which sense the characteristics of the burrs and, in relation, the gap defined between the burrs; and the sensor can be any form of sensing, including those noted above, but not limited to such sensors, may be used to determine the relationship of the burrs, the position of each or both burrs, or the spacing of the gap between the burrs in any form possible (paragraph 0030);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to substitute the configuration of the sensor of Anson by any by sensing configuration, including a potentiometer in order to determine the relationship of the burrs, the position of each or both burrs, or the spacing of the gap between the burrs (Anson: paragraph 0030); since it has been held the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious. (MPEP 2144.06).
Regarding claim 12, Anson does not disclose wherein the sensor includes a gear with teeth sized to mechanically engage the teeth of the intermediary gear;
However, Anson discloses wherein the sensor (fig.4: (92)) mechanically engage the teeth of the intermediary gear (fig.4: (56)); and
The sensor can be physical sensor, and the sensor can be any form of sensing, including those noted above, but not limited to such sensors, may be used to determine the relationship of the burrs, the position of each or both burrs, or the spacing of the gap between the burrs in any form possible (paragraph 0030);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to substitute the configuration of the sensor of Anson by any sensing configuration, including wherein the sensor includes a gear with teeth sized to mechanically engage the teeth of the intermediary gear in order to determine the relationship of the burrs, the position of each or both burrs, or the spacing of the gap between the burrs (Anson: paragraph 0030). (MPEP 2144.06).
Regarding claim 13, Anson discloses wherein the PPS includes one of blades and burrs (fig.4: (38) and (40)) and rotating the intermediary gear modifies the operation of one of the blades and the burrs (paragraph 0027).
Regarding claim 21, Anson discloses a system for setting a particle grinding level (PGL) of a particle processing system (PPS) where the setting of the PGL changes mechanical processing of particles by the PPS abstract and paragraphs 0200-0029), including:
a grinder motor (fig.1: (44));
an intermediary gear (fig.4.: (56)) including a plurality of teeth, where the intermediary gear is rotatable via its teeth to set different PGL;
an adjusting motor (figs.2 and 4: (68)) mechanically coupled to the intermediary gear so that when the adjusting motor is activated, the PGL is adjusted;
a sensor (fig.4: (92)) to mechanically engage the teeth of the intermediary gear, the sensor configured to detect the adjustment of the PGL based on the movement of the intermediary gear teeth via its gear; and
a controller (fig.1: (82)) electrically coupled the adjusting motor and the sensor to controllably adjust the PGL via the adjusting motor to a desired setting.
Anson does not disclose with a gear with teeth sized to mechanically engage the teeth of the intermediary gear.
wherein the sensor (fig.4.: (92)) is mechanically coupled to the intermediary gear (fig.4.: (56)) (paragraphs 0029-0030).
However, Anson discloses wherein the sensor (fig.4: (92)) mechanically engage the teeth of the intermediary gear (fig.4: (56)); and
The sensor can be physical sensor, and the sensor can be any form of sensing, including those noted above, but not limited to such sensors, may be used to determine the relationship of the burrs, the position of each or both burrs, or the spacing of the gap between the burrs in any form possible (paragraph 0030);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to substitute the configuration of the sensor of Anson by any sensing configuration, including wherein the sensor includes a gear with teeth sized to mechanically engage the teeth of the intermediary gear in order to determine the relationship of the burrs, the position of each or both burrs, or the spacing of the gap between the burrs (Anson: paragraph 0030). (MPEP 2144.06).
Regarding claim 22, Anson discloses wherein the controller adjusts the PGL via the adjusting motor to a desired setting within a predetermined tolerance (paragraph 0032 and claim 9).
Regarding claims 23, Anson does not disclose wherein the sensor includes a potentiometer;
However, Anson discloses wherein the sensor (fig.4: (92)) mechanically engage the teeth of the intermediary gear (fig.4: (56)); and
The sensor can be physical sensor, the sensors may be in the form of electrical, magnetic or optical sensors which sense the characteristics of the burrs and, in relation, the gap defined between the burrs; and the sensor can be any form of sensing, including those noted above, but not limited to such sensors, may be used to determine the relationship of the burrs, the position of each or both burrs, or the spacing of the gap between the burrs in any form possible (paragraph 0030);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to substitute the configuration of the sensor of Anson by any by sensing configuration, including a potentiometer in order to determine the relationship of the burrs, the position of each or both burrs, or the spacing of the gap between the burrs (Anson: paragraph 0030); since it has been held the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious. (MPEP 2144.06).
Regarding claim 24, Anson discloses wherein the controller adjusts the PGL via the adjusting motor to one of a fixed number of levels (paragraph 0025).
Regarding claim 25, Anson discloses wherein the particles to be processed are coffee beans (abstract).
Regarding claim 26, Anson discloses wherein the adjusting motor (figs.2 and 4: (68)) includes a gear with teeth (fig.4: (66)) sized to mechanically engage the teeth of the intermediary gear (fig.4: (56)) to rotate the intermediary gear to adjust the PGL.
Regarding claim 27, Anson discloses wherein the PPS includes one of blades and burrs and rotating the intermediary gear modifies the operation of one of the blades and the burrs to change the PGL (paragraphs 0032).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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