Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/531,791

COFFEE GRINDER SYSTEM

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Dec 07, 2023
Examiner
ALAWADI, MOHAMMED S
Art Unit
3725
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
74%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 74% — above average
74%
Career Allow Rate
510 granted / 692 resolved
+3.7% vs TC avg
Strong +25% interview lift
Without
With
+25.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
61 currently pending
Career history
753
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
35.3%
-4.7% vs TC avg
§102
22.8%
-17.2% vs TC avg
§112
38.0%
-2.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 692 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §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 . 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 11-13 and 15 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 claims 11-13, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claim 13 recites the limitation " the coupling element " in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim; further the phrase “the coupling element” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by “the coupling element”. Claim 13 recites the limitation " the coupling element " in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim; further the phrase “the coupling element” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by “the coupling element”. Claim 13 recites the limitation "the thumb" in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 13 recites the limitation "the tip" in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 13 recites the limitation "the user’s hand" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 13 recites the limitation " the coupling element " in line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim; further the phrase “the coupling element” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by “the coupling element”. Claim 15 recites the limitation "the center axis" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. 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, 4-8, 10-11, 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cheng (US20200054162A1). Regarding claim 1, Cheng discloses a coffee grinder system (abstract and paragraphs 0036-0064) comprising: a coffee grinder (fig.1B: (110)) including a housing (fig.1B: (111)) and a grinding mechanism (fig.1B: (113)) arranged in the housing, and a drive device (fig.2A: (122)) for driving the grinding mechanism, wherein the coffee grinder is or can be movably and self-centeringly coupled to the drive device (paragraphs 0064 and 0070). Regarding claim 2, Cheng discloses further comprising a coupling device (fig.4: (242)), wherein the housing is or can be movably coupled to the drive device by the coupling device (paragraph 0084--0088). Regarding claim 4, Cheng discloses wherein the coffee grinder has a drive element (fig.2B: (124)) for introducing a torque into the coffee grinder. Regarding claim 5, Cheng discloses wherein the drive element (fig.2B: (124)) is mounted rotatably about a drive axis of rotation (the element (124) is rotated about a drive axis of rotation that perpendicular to the shaft (116)) (paragraph 0064 and 0070). Regarding claim 6, Cheng discloses wherein the drive device has an output element (fig.2B: (116)), which is or can be torque-transmittingly connected to the drive element (paragraph 0064). Regarding claim 7, Cheng discloses wherein the output element (fig.2B: (116)) is mounted rotatably about an output axis of rotation and/or is driven in rotation about an output axis of rotation (the axis of rotation of the shaft (116)). Regarding claim 8, Cheng discloses wherein the drive device has an output element (fig.2B: (116)), which is torque-transmittingly connected to the drive element (fig.2B: (124)) and the output element is mounted rotatably about an output axis of rotation and/or is driven in rotation about an output axis of rotation (the axis of rotation of the shaft (116)), wherein the coffee grinder system has at least one of the following features a to f: a. the coffee grinder coupled to the drive device is movable in a plane perpendicular to the drive axis of rotation, b. the coffee grinder coupled to the drive device is movable in a plane perpendicular to the output axis of rotation, c. the coffee grinder coupled to the drive device is linearly movable in a direction perpendicular to the drive axis of rotation, d. the coffee grinder coupled to the drive device is linearly movable in a direction perpendicular to the output axis of rotation, e. the coffee grinder coupled to the drive device is immovable in the direction of the drive axis of rotation (fig.2A), f. the coffee grinder coupled to the drive device is immovable in the direction of the output axis of rotation (fig.2A). Regarding claim 10, Cheng discloses wherein the drive device has an output element (fig.2B: (116)), which is torque-transmittingly connected to the drive element (fig.2B: (124)) and the output element is mounted rotatably about an output axis of rotation and/or is driven in rotation about an output axis of rotation (the axis of rotation of the shaft (116)), wherein the coffee grinder system has at least one of the following features a to d: a. the coffee grinder is or can be coupled to the drive device self-centeringly with respect to a direction which differs from the direction of the drive axis of rotation, b. the coffee grinder is or can be coupled to the drive device self-centeringly with respect to a direction which differs from the direction of the output axis of rotation, c. the coffee grinder is or can be coupled to the drive device self-centeringly with respect to a direction which is perpendicular to the direction of the drive axis of rotation (fig.2A), d. the coffee grinder is or can be coupled to the drive device self-centeringly with respect to a direction which is perpendicular to the direction of the output axis of rotation (fig.2A). Regarding claim 11, Cheng discloses wherein the output element (fig.2B: (116)) is mounted rotatably about an output axis of rotation and/or is driven in rotation about an output axis of rotation (the axis of rotation of the shaft (116)), wherein the coffee grinder system has at least one of the following features a to d: a. the torque-transmitting connection can be established without tools and/or the torque-transmitting connection can be redetached without tools (implicitly, no tools need to connect and disconnected the grinder parts), b. the torque-transmitting connection is in the form of a compensating coupling or comprises a compensating coupling (figs.2A-3B), c. the torque-transmitting connection permits a movement of the drive element relative to the output element (paragraph 0064), in particular a tilting movement and/or a radial movement, during a driving operation, d. the drive element and the output element are designed and arranged such that the torque-transmitting connection is automatically established when the housing is fastened to the drive device by means of the coupling device (figs.2A-3B and paragraph 0084--0088). Regarding claim 13, Cheng discloses wherein the coffee grinder system has at least one of the following features a to f: a. the coupling device supports a torque introduced into the grinding mechanism by the drive element (fig.3B), b. the coupling device permits a pivoting movement and/or a linear movement of the housing during a driving operation, c. the coupling device has two coupling elements, one of which is part of the drive device and the other of which is arranged on the housing (figs.3B and 4; and paragraph 0090), d. the coupling element arranged on the housing is arranged in such a way that it can act as torque support when the coffee grinder is driven by a hand crank instead of by the drive device, e. the coupling element arranged on the housingis positioned relative to the housing such that it rests against the thumb, in particular the tip of the thumb, of the user's hand that wholly or partially grasps the preferably circular-cylindrical housing, f. the coupling element arranged on the housing is fastened to the housing by means of at least one clip. Regarding claim 14, Cheng discloses wherein a. the coupling device has a plug-in peg, which is arranged on the housing and can be plugged into a plug-in peg receptacle of the drive device along a plug-in direction, or wherein b. the drive device has a plug-in peg, which can be plugged into a plug-in peg receptacle arranged on the housing along a plug-in direction (paragraph 0086). Regarding claim 15, Cheng discloses, wherein a. the housing when coupled to the drive device is pivotable relative to the drive device about the center axis of the plug-in peg extending in the plug-in direction, and/or wherein b. the housing when coupled to the drive device is displaceable relative to the drive device along the center axis of the plug-in peg extending in the plug-in direction ((paragraph 0086)). Regarding claim 16, Cheng discloses wherein the coffee grinder system has a hand crank (fig.4: (222)) and wherein the coffee grinder is designed to be selectively coupled either to the drive device (fig.4: (122)) or to the hand crank (fig.4). Regarding claim 17, Cheng discloses wherein the coffee grinder system has at least one of the following features a to c: a. the coffee grinder can be detachably coupled to the hand crank without tools (implicitly, no tools need to connect and disconnected the grinder parts), b. the hand crank is designed to be inserted into a through-bore in a drive shaft of the coffee grinder, c. the housing is designed to be held in a user's hand during a grinding operation, the user being able to actuate the hand crank with their other hand (figs.2A and 4). Regarding claim 18, Cheng discloses wherein the housing is tubular or the housing (fig.1B: (111)) has a circular outer contour and/or a circular inner contour in a cross-sectional plane perpendicular to its direction of longitudinal extent. Regarding claim 19, Cheng discloses wherein the housing has a filling opening (fig.1B: (111)) for coffee beans that are to be ground. Regarding claim 20, Cheng discloses wherein the housing (fig.1B: (111)) surrounds a receiving space for coffee beans that are to be ground. Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pai (US20170258272A1). Regarding claim 1, Pai discloses a coffee grinder system (abstract and paragraphs 0024-0032) comprising: a coffee grinder (figs.1 and 4-5: (3)) including a housing (figs.1 and 4-5: (31)) and a grinding mechanism (figs.1 and 4-5: and (34)) arranged in the housing, and a drive device (figs.1 and 5: (2)) for driving the grinding mechanism, wherein the coffee grinder is or can be movably and self-centeringly coupled to the drive device (paragraph 0032 and figs.4-5). Regarding claim 3, Pai discloses wherein the drive device figs.1 and 5: (2))) has an electric drive motor. 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. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng (US20200054162A1). Regarding claim 12 Cheng does not disclose a. the drive element (14) has a driver bar (16) arranged transversely to a drive shaft and wherein the output element (10) comprises a fork having tines (13) aligned in particular in the axial direction, and/or wherein b. the drive element (14) has a driver bar (16) which is arranged transversely to a drive shaft and extends through a through-bore in the drive shaft and wherein the output element (10) comprises a fork having tines (13) aligned in particular in the axial direction, and/or wherein c. the drive element (14) has a driver bar (16) arranged transversely to a drive shaft and wherein the output element (10) comprises a fork having tines (13) aligned in particular in the axial direction, the driver bar (16) being fastened and/or fixed to or in the drive element. However, Cheng discloses the drive element (fig.2B: (124)) for introducing a torque into the coffee grinder; So, it appears both of configuration of the Applicant’s disclosure and the prior art of Cheng lead to the same result of introducing a torque into the coffee grinder; Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to substitute the drive element of Cheng by any equivalent drive element, including the drive element has a driver bar arranged transversely to a drive shaft and wherein the output element comprises a fork having tines in order to have rotation of the arm can be transmitted by the transmission component (124) to the grinding surfaces (113) via the drive shaft (116) (paragraph 0064). In Smith v. Hayashi, 209 USPQ 754 (Bd. of Pat. Inter. 1980). MPEP 2144.06. Allowable Subject Matter The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 9, the closet prior art is Cheng (US20200054162A1)., however in the opinion of the Examiner that the arts of record neither anticipates nor render obvious the limitations of the claim as recited. Claim 9 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. 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

Dec 07, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 11, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599911
CRUSHING AND CLASSIFYING DEVICE AND METHOD FOR CRUSHING AND CLASSIFYING ELECTRODE MATERIAL
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12589421
HAIRPIN COIL FLATTENING CONTROL SYSTEM AND METHOD THEREFOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12588782
COFFEE GRINDER WITH AUTOMATIC DOSE CONTROL SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12582993
ELECTRICALLY-DRIVEN STONE MATERIAL CRUSHING TOOL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12576407
PORTABLE PAPER SHREDDER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
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
74%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+25.0%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 692 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

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

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month