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 of claims 9-22 drawn to a hand vegetation grinder assembly in the reply filed on February 5th, 2026. is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 3-8 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on February 5th, 2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
An information disclosure statement has not been submitted by applicant; therefore, an information disclosure statement has not been considered. For an information disclosure statement to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(1), the information disclosure statement requires the following: (1) a list of all patents, publications, applications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office; (2) U.S. patents and U.S. patent application publications listed in a section separately from citations of other documents; (3) the application number of the application in which the information disclosure statement is being submitted on each page of the list; (4) a column that provides a blank space next to each document to be considered, for the examiner’s initials; and (5) a heading that clearly indicates that the list is an information disclosure statement. See MPEP § 609.04(a).
Drawings
The drawings were received on February 18, 2024. These drawings are acceptable.
The drawings, specifically Figs. 1 and 2, are objected to because they contained a box around label 115 and it is unclear what it the box is illustrating. 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.
The drawings, Figs. 5-7, are objected to because the label for "Axis A" is missing. 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.
The drawings, specifically Fig. 7, are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: "D". Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
The drawings, specifically Fig. 11, are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show "Plane B" as described in the specification (¶0058, Line 1). Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). 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.
The drawings, specifically Fig. 15, are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the grinder openings 135 as described in the specification (¶0074, Lines 9-10). Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). 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.
Figures 17 and 21 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated (¶0064, Lines 1-2; ¶0067, Line 1). See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: "206A" (¶0082, Lines 8, 10, and 12). 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. 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.
In addition to Replacement Sheets containing the corrected drawing figure(s), applicant is required to submit a marked-up copy of each Replacement Sheet including annotations indicating the changes made to the previous version. The marked-up copy must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheets” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings. See 37 CFR 1.121(d)(1). Failure to timely submit the proposed drawing and marked-up copy will result in the abandonment of the application.
Specification
The title of the invention, Hand Vegetation Grinder and Methods of use, is not descriptive. There are no claims directed to methods of use. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The following title is suggested: "Hand Vegetation Grinder".
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
¶0038, Line 1: “planer” should read --planar--
¶0065-¶0067: contain description for figures that were cancelled
¶0073, Line 4: “threaded 115” should read --threaded with threads 115--
¶0078, Lines 3-5: contains description for figures that were cancelled
¶0079, Line 4: “planer” should read --planar--
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 19 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.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "said outer collector surface" in Line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purpose of examination, “said outer collector surface” is interpreted as --an outer collector surface--.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “substantially the same”. The term “substantially” is a relative and/or subjective term that renders the claim indefinite since metes and bounds for the term have not been established.
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 9, 12-13, 15-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Benson (US10028618B1), hereinafter "Benson".
Regarding Claim 9, Benson discloses a hand vegetation grinder assembly (Fig. 4) in an operable mode comprising: a grinder (Column 4, Lines 33-35, Element 270); said grinder (Column 4, Lines 33-35, Element 270) comprising a grinder ring (Fig. 4, Element 300); said grinder (Column 4, Lines 33-35, Element 270) comprising a bulbous mesh (Fig. 4, Element 290); said bulbous mesh (Fig. 4, Element 290) fixed to said grinder ring (Column 4, Lines 35-36); said bulbous mesh (Fig. 4, Element 290) bulging downward from said grinder ring (Fig. 4, Element 300) (Column 4, Lines 36-37); a collector (Fig. 4, Element 280); said collector (Fig. 4, Element 280) comprising an encircling collector wall (see annotated Fig. 4 of Benson reproduced below) defining a collector cavity (see annotated Fig. 4 of Benson reproduced below) within said collector wall (see annotated Fig. 4 of Benson reproduced below); said collector (Fig. 4, Element 280) comprising a collector mouth (Fig. 4, Element 330); said collector mouth (Fig. 4, Element 330); leading into said collector cavity (see annotated Fig. 5 of Benson reproduced below); said grinder (Column 4, Lines 33-35, Element 270) and said collector (Fig. 4, Element 280) aligned (Fig 4; Column 4, Lines 40-41); and wherein said grinder ring (Fig. 4, Element 300) is seated on said collector mouth (Fig. 4, Element 330) (Column 4, Lines 45-47) with said bulbous mesh (Fig. 4, Element 290) extending into said collector mouth (Fig. 4, Element 330).
Regarding Claim 12, Benson anticipates the hand vegetation grinder assembly of Claim 9 as explained above.
Benson further discloses wherein said bulbous mesh (Fig. 4, Element 290) comprises a woven wire (see annotated Fig. 5 of Benson reproduced above).
PNG
media_image1.png
588
697
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 4 of Benson
PNG
media_image2.png
615
363
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 5 of Benson
Regarding Claim 13, Benson anticipates the hand vegetation grinder assembly of Claim 9 as explained above.
Benson further discloses said grinder ring (Fig. 4, Element 300) having a superior face facing superior (see annotated Fig. 4 of Benson reproduced above); said grinder ring (Fig. 4, Element 300) having an inner face facing inward (see annotated Fig. 4 of Benson reproduced above); and, wherein said grinder ring (Fig. 4, Element 300) comprises a radiused edge (see annotated Fig. 4 of Benson reproduced above) transitioning between said superior face (see annotated Fig. 4 of Benson reproduced above) and said inner face (see annotated Fig. 4 of Benson reproduced above).
Regarding Claim 15, Benson anticipates the hand vegetation grinder assembly of Claim 9 as explained above.
Benson further discloses a lid (Fig. 4, Element 210); wherein said lid comprises a closure cavity (see annotated Fig. 4 of Benson reproduced above) operable to encircle and enclose said collector mouth (Fig. 4, Element 330) (Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 16, Benson anticipates the hand vegetation grinder assembly of Claim 15 as explained above.
Benson further discloses wherein said grinder ring (Fig. 4, Element 300) is sized to fit in said closure cavity (see annotated Fig. 4 of Benson reproduced above) (Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 17, Benson anticipates the hand vegetation grinder assembly of Claim 15 as explained above.
Benson further discloses wherein said wherein said closure cavity (see annotated Fig. 4 of Benson reproduced above) comprises inner threads (Fig. 4, Element 370).
Regarding Claim 18, Benson anticipates the hand vegetation grinder assembly of Claim 15 as explained above.
Benson further discloses wherein said collector (Fig. 4, Element 280) is encircled with external threads (Fig. 4, Element 340) just below said collector mouth (Fig. 4, Element 330).
Regarding Claim 19, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(B) issues identified above, Benson anticipates the hand vegetation grinder assembly of Claim 9 as explained above.
Benson further discloses wherein the external diameter (see annotated Fig. 4 of Benson reproduced above) of said grinder ring (Fig. 4, Element 300) is substantially the same as said outer collector surface (see annotated Fig. 4 of Benson reproduced above) at said collector mouth (Fig. 4, Element 330).
Regarding Claim 20, Benson anticipates the hand vegetation grinder assembly of Claim 9 as explained above.
Benson further discloses wherein said bulbous mesh (Fig. 4, Element 290) is substantially hemi-spherical in shape (see annotated Fig. 4 of Benson reproduced above).
Regarding Claim 21, Benson anticipates the hand vegetation grinder assembly of Claim 9 as explained above.
Benson further discloses wherein said grinder ring (Fig. 4, Element 300) has a diameter sized to overlap said collector mouth (Fig. 4, Element 330) (see annotated Fig. 4 of Benson reproduced above).
Regarding Claim 22, Benson anticipates the hand vegetation grinder assembly of Claim 9 as explained above.
Benson further discloses wherein said grinder mesh (Fig. 4, Element 290) has steeply sloped sides that curve inward to an inferior point (see annotated Fig. 4 of Benson reproduced above).
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 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benson in view of Lurch AG (DE202009002121U1), hereinafter "Lurch". For text citation of Lurch, refer to the machine translation provided by the Examiner.
Regarding Claim 10, Benson anticipates the hand vegetation grinder assembly of Claim 9 as explained above.
Benson fails to disclose wherein said bulbous mesh is welded to said grinder ring.
Nonetheless, Lurch teaches wherein said bulbous mesh (Fig. 1, Element 5) is welded (¶0021, Lines 1-7) to said grinder ring (Fig. 1, Element 6).
Benson and Lurch are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of grinders. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Lurch into the hand vegetation grinder assembly disclosed by Benson to weld the bulbous mesh to the grinder ring to achieve a firm connection between both elements (¶0021, Lines 1-7).
Claims 11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benson in view of Lu (USD958612S), hereinafter "Lu" and The Tea Table (2015), hereinafter "The Tea Table".
Regarding Claim 11, Benson anticipates the hand vegetation grinder assembly of Claim 9 as explained above.
Benson fails to disclose wherein said bulbous mesh is crimped to said grinder ring.
Nonetheless, Lu teaches wherein said bulbous mesh (see annotated Fig. 9 of Lu reproduced below) is crimped (see annotated Fig. 9 of Lu reproduced below) to said grinder ring (see annotated Fig. 9 of Lu reproduced below).
Benson and Lu are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of vegetation processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Lu into the hand vegetation grinder assembly disclosed by Benson and substitute the connection of the mesh to the grinder ring with crimping the mesh to the grinder ring to yield the predictable result of providing a secure connection between the mesh and the grinder ring (The Tea Table, ¶02, Lines 1-2). Since crimping is just another way of connecting the mesh to the grinder ring, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found the results of the substitution to be predictable.
PNG
media_image3.png
730
538
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 9 of Lu
Regarding Claim 14, Benson anticipates the hand vegetation grinder assembly of Claim 9 as explained above.
Benson fails to disclose a mesh flange on said grinder ring; said mesh flange defined by a superior crimp face facing inferiorly; said mesh flange defined by an inferior crimp face facing superiorly; an inter-crimp face extending between said superior crimp face and said inferior crimp face; and, wherein a portion of said grinder mesh is crimped between said superior crimp face and said inferior crimp face.
Nonetheless, Lu teaches a mesh flange on said grinder ring; said mesh flange (see annotated Fig. 9 of Lu reproduced above) defined by a superior crimp face facing inferiorly (see annotated Fig. 9 of Lu reproduced above); said mesh flange defined by an inferior crimp face facing superiorly (see annotated Fig. 9 of Lu reproduced above); an inter-crimp face extending between said superior crimp face and said inferior crimp face (see annotated Fig. 9 of Lu reproduced above); and, wherein a portion of said grinder mesh is crimped between said superior crimp face and said inferior crimp face (see annotated Fig. 9 of Lu reproduced above).
Benson and Lu are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of vegetation processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Lu into the hand vegetation grinder assembly disclosed by Benson and substitute the connection of the mesh to the grinder ring with crimping the mesh to the grinder ring to yield the predictable result of providing a secure connection between the mesh and the grinder ring (The Tea Table, ¶02, Lines 1-2). Since crimping is just another way of connecting the mesh to the grinder ring, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found the results of the substitution to be predictable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALONDRA MICHELLE ORTIZ-ORTIZ whose telephone number is (571)272-9539. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7-5PM ET.
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.
/A.M.O./Examiner, Art Unit 3725 /Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725