DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the application and claims filed on February 11, 2026. Claims 1-4 and 7 are pending, with claim 1 in independent claim form.
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 .
An amendment was filed by Applicant on February 11, 2026 and is acknowledged.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. TW112211897 filed on 11/02/2023.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/11/2026 with have been fully considered and the 112 rejection are withdrawn.
with respect to the claims, the arguments have been fully considered but are moot because the scope of the claims have change based on the present amended limitations and a new interpretation is given to the references for rejection as set forth in this current Office Action.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 line 8, recited the limitation of “there is a grinding gap between the inner grinding member “ is suggested to be replaced with “a grinding gap between the inner grinding member“.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 1 lines 9-11, discloses the limitation “the inner grinding member …”,
Claim 1 line 12, discloses the limitation “a fixing member fixing the supporting member”,
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
A review of the specification shows that there is equivalent structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f): the drawings shows the inner grinding member as a conical inner blade and the fixing member as a nut therefore they will be interpreted as a conical inner blade and a nut.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo WO Publication (2023/044672) hereinafter Guo in view of Xiong CN Publication (204245983) hereinafter Xiong.
Regarding claim 1,
Guo discloses a device (see fig.1) for grinding coffee beans comprising:
a housing assembly (10) having a housing (12,150,152,154,274 and 70 see fig.6 and 7 show the element being house), a supporting member (236), and an outer grinding member (26),
wherein the supporting member (236) and the outer grinding member (26) are arranged in the housing (12,150,152,154,274 and 70);
a shaft assembly (24,234, see fig.5) having a shaft (234) and an inner grinding member (24),
wherein the inner grinding member (24) is arranged on the shaft (234),
the shaft (234) penetrates through the supporting member (236),
there is a grinding gap (see fig.6) between the inner grinding member (24) and the outer grinding member (26), rotation of the shaft (234) rotates the inner grinding member (24) relative to the outer grinding member (26) to grind coffee beans in the grinding gap;
a fixing member (240) fixing the supporting member (236) and the shaft (234);
PNG
media_image1.png
278
527
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a brush assembly (28,160,162) having a brush base (see fig. 7) and at least one brush member (28) thereon, and the brush base (see fig. 7) is provided with at least one pin (162),
PNG
media_image2.png
756
689
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein one end of the brush member (28) is arranged on the brush base and another end of the brush member extends to the grinding gap (see fig.5-7), when the brush base (see fig. 7) is fixed to a bottom of the inner grinding member (24) through the at least one pin (162), rotation of the shaft assembly rotates the brush base to brush away coffee powder remaining in the grinding gap (Space between element 24, 26 and space occupied by element 28).
a fastening bracket (354 and assembly see fig.5, additionally see fig 9-10) provided with a fastening slot (see fig.5) and installed on a grinding base (12); and
a fastener (see fig.5) with an end (see fig.5) thereof arranged on an outer side of the housing (12,150,152,154,274 and 70, see fig.6 and 7 show the element being house), and another end (see fig.5) of the fastener, matching the fastening slot, is assembled in the fastening slot (see fig.5).
Guo does not disclose the inner grinding member to comprise a ferromagnetic material and the brush base to be provided with at least one magnet,
Guo and Xiong disclose both analogous art in the field of endeavor of the claimed invention (i.e. food process apparatus).
Xiong, in a food apparatus art, teaches an inner stirring member (42-44) to comprise a ferromagnetic material (43-44) and the brush base (5) to be provided with at least one magnet (54, see para. [0041] lines 1-4).
Xiong teaches the inner stirring member to comprise a ferromagnetic material and the brush base to be provided with at least one magnet to allow transmission of rotation from one member to a next member and reducing in frictions (see para. [0041]), therefore it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date to construct the inner grinding member and the brush base of Guo to comprise ferromagnetic material and magnet as taught by Xiong, as it would be beneficiary to Guo to be able to allow transmission of rotation from one member to a next member, reducing in frictions and save on energy.
Regarding claim 2,
The prior art Guo as modified by Xiong, discloses all limitations in claim 1,
Guo further discloses wherein the at least one brush member (28) comprises a plurality of brush members (see fig. 7).
Regarding claims 3-4,
The prior art Guo as modified by Xiong, discloses all limitations in claim 2,
Guo discloses the plurality of brush member (see fig.7) but is silent about the plurality of brush members to have different lengths and inclination angles relative to a horizontal plane for brushing away coffee powder in different depths and of different horizontal heights remaining of and in the grinding gap and since no criticality is recited for the plurality of brush members to have different lengths and inclination angles relative to a horizontal plane for brushing away coffee powder and well known in the mechanical art for brush members to be constructed with different sizes and shapes deemed suitable for specific operation and ensure effectiveness of operation, and that such is not non- obvious, occurs during routine engineering practices and experimentation and does not in itself warrant patentability, therefore it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date to have the plurality of brush member to have different lengths and inclination angles relative to a horizontal plane for brushing away coffee powder in different depths and of different horizontal heights remaining of and in the grinding gap to ensure effectiveness of operation. Accordingly, it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Accordingly, it has been held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant. In reDailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 7,
The prior art Guo as modified by Xiong, discloses all limitations in claim 1,
Guo further discloses wherein a first end of the fastening slot (see fig.7 above) is arranged in a middle area of the fastening bracket, a second end of the fastening slot (see fig.7) extends to an edge of the fastening bracket, and the fastener is inserted into the fastening slot from the second end and fixed to the first end (see fig.7).
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 Smith Oberto BAPTHELUS whose telephone number is 571-272-5976. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday 9:00 AM to 5:00 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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
February 24, 2026
/BSO/Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725