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
Claims 1-5, 34-44, 54-64 and 65-71 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on September 15, 2026. In view of the Applicant’s response, elected Species B is directed to Claims 6-33, 45-53 and 72 which require a grinder-to-appliance coupling, and will be examined on their merits.
Applicant's election with traverse of Species B in the reply filed on September 15, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the claims are not mutually exclusive and the lack of a search/examination burden. This is not found persuasive because claims 1-5 are directed to Species A (i.e. a method of brewing coffee), claims 34-44 are directed to Species D (i.e. a grinder and filter basket, with no requirement for a grinder-to-appliance coupling), claims 54-64 are directed to Species F (i.e. a filter basket, with no requirement for a grinder-to-appliance coupling) and Claims 65-71 are directed to Species G (i.e. a grinder burr, filter basket and steam shield, with no requirement for a grinder-to-appliance coupling). The listed Species recite various individual components of a coffee maker that do not require the specific grinder-to-appliance coupling recited in elected Species B. There is an examination and search burden for these patentably distinct species due to their mutually exclusive characteristics, with regard to a coffee maker requiring a grinder-to-appliance coupling to a more generic coffee maker requiring basic brewing components (i.e. Species A, D, F and G listed above). As such, the mutually exclusive species require a different field of search (e.g., employing different search queries) and the prior art applicable to one species would not likely be applicable to another species. It is noted, the claims are subject to rejoinder upon the indication of allowable subject matter.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
GROUND 1: Claims 6-33, 45-53 and 72 are 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.
Claims 6, 20 and 45 recite, in part, a “grinder housing being designed to mount the grinder burr in a consumer countertop appliance and to receive drive power from a motor of the countertop appliance for drive of the grinder burr”. Similarly, Claim 72 recites, in part, “a grinder burr arranged for rotation on a vertical axis; a grinder housing being designed to: retain the grinder burr in a consumer countertop appliance for rotation on a vertical axis; receive drive power from a motor of the countertop appliance for drive of the grinder burr”. The cited claim language leads to confusion as how the grinder burr within the grinder housing, which is designed to be mounted with a consumer countertop appliance, is driven/rotated by the motor of the consumer countertop appliance. In view of the specification and drawings, it can be seen that grinder assembly 300 comprises grinder burr 312 and the assembly is configured to be mounted within a consumer countertop appliance (See Figs. 1a-j and para 0039). However, it is unclear how motor 520 drives/rotates grinder burr 312 located within grinder housing 402 as claimed. Figures 5d-e illustrates grinder burr 312 as being within grinder housing 402 as a non-rotary part. Para 0062 further discloses grinder burr 312 as being a non-rotating part. It is clear from the drawings (Figs 4a-o) and specification that the grinder assembly is mounted within the appliance via coupling 450, but it does not appear that any rotating parts, or motor driven parts, are located within the grinder housing as claimed. Rather, Figures 5d-e illustrate unlabeled components that appear to be part of the appliance, and not configured for removal/attachment in the same manner as the grinder housing 110/300 as seen in the following annotated Figures:
PNG
media_image1.png
530
410
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
786
503
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The current claim language appears to define inner burr 310 as being part of the grinder housing 110/300 and configured for removal/attachment to the appliance. Claims 11, 19, 28, 33 and 53 recite similar limitations with regard to “the grinder burr arranged for rotation on a vertical axis”. Again, grinder burr 312 does not rotate, rather inner burr 310 rotates via motor 520, however the inner burr 310 does not appear to be part of the grinder housing 110/300. Appropriate clarification and correction is required.
Claims 7-19, 21-33 and 46-53 are rejected as being necessarily dependent upon claims 6, 20 and 45, respectively.
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.
GROUND 2: Claim(s) 6-9, 11-13, 18-20, 22-23, 27 and 32-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0031893 to Nam et al.
In regard to claims 6, 20 and 27, Nam et al. disclose an apparatus, comprising: a grinder burr 114; a grinder housing 100 being designed to mount the grinder burr in a consumer countertop appliance 10 (see Figs. 1-2) and to: receive drive power from a motor 151 of the countertop appliance for drive of the grinder burr (See paras 0180-0182); retain a container 200 for unground foodstuffs as a container/grinder assembly, with the container positioned for gravity feed into the grinder burr, and for handling of the container and grinder burr as an assembly; retain the grinder burr in a fashion and location to direct foodstuffs to flow from the container into the grinder burr, and to direct ground foodstuffs to be delivered into a receptacle (See Figs. 3-4); a grinder-to-appliance coupling and a grinder-to-container coupling of the grinder housing being jointly designed to permit a user to readily separate and remove a first container/grinder assembly from the countertop appliance and to replace it with a second container/grinder assembly into the countertop appliance, while the first and second container/grinder assemblies hold unground foodstuffs therein, the removal and replacement at the grinder-to-appliance coupling designed to be performed while the grinder-to-appliance coupling holds the container and grinder housing together in an integrated container/grinder assembly without accidental separation at the grinder-to-container coupling (See Figs. 5-10 and paras 0134-0208). With regard to the language “to permit a second container/grinder assembly to be attached”, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. As broadly as claimed, Nam et al. meet the current limitations of the cited claims.
In regard to claim 7, Nam et al. disclose an apparatus, the grinder-to-appliance coupling being designed to retain the foodstuffs in the container while the container/grinder assembly is removed from the appliance by retaining the grinder burr
over an opening of the container (See Figs. 5-10 and paras 0134-0208). A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
In regard to claims 8 and 22, Nam et al. disclose an apparatus, wherein: the grinder-to-appliance coupling is designed to permit a user to readily mount the container/grinder assembly in and remove from the countertop appliance assemblycountertop
appliance without the use of tools (See Figs. 5-10 and paras 0134-0208).
In regard to claims 9 and 23, Nam et al. disclose an apparatus, wherein: the grinder-to-container coupling is designed to allow the user to separate the container from the grinder housing without the use of tools (See Figs. 5-10 and paras 0134-0208).
In regard to claims 11 and 25, Nam et al. disclose an apparatus, wherein: the path from grinder to ground foodstuff receiving area designed for nearly vertical drop and reduced sticking of ground foodstuff (See Figs. 1-4 and paras 0117-0118).
In regard to claims 12 and 26, Nam et al. disclose an apparatus, wherein the container and grinder burr are designed for unground whole bean coffee, and to grind the unground beans to grounds for brewing; the appliance further comprising a water delivery system 50 and water heater for delivery of water for brewing of coffee (See Figs. 1-4 and paras 0120-0133).
In regard to claim 13, Nam et al. disclose an apparatus, further comprising:
a container for unground foodstuffs, the container having a connector for connection to the grinder housing (see Fig.8).
In regard to claims 18-19, 32-33, Nam et al. disclose an apparatus, further comprising: a water pump designed to distribute hot water to grounds in a brewing chamber of the apparatus; and a controller designed to improve wetting of or extraction from the ground food stuff during brewing by pulsing the water pump during brewing (See Figs. 1-4 and paras 0120-0133).
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.
GROUND 3: Claim(s) 10, 15, 21, 24, 29, 45-52 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0031893 to Nam et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0291738 to Laithier et al.
In regard to claims 10, 15, 21, 24, 29 and 45-52, Nam et al. disclose an apparatus comprising a grinder burr, grinder housing, container for foodstuff and couplings to allow the grinder housing and container to be coupled to a consumer countertop appliance (See rejections above) but are silent with respect to the grinder-to-container coupling being designed to impair and/or deter reuse of the container after separation. Laithier et al. teach of an analogous container for foodstuff wherein the tank and the dispensing closure thereof are not detachable from one another without destroying a part of the container (See Figs. 1-6 and paras 0017-0038). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the container of Nam et al. to include a coupling which impairs and/or deter reuse of the container after separation as taught by Laithier et al.
GROUND 4: Claim(s) 14, 16-17, 28, 30-31 and 53 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0031893 to Nam et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0231522 to Burrows et al.
In regard to claims 14, 16-17, 28, 30-31 and 53, Nam et al. disclose an apparatus comprising a grinder burr, grinder housing, container for foodstuff and couplings to allow the grinder housing and container to be coupled to a consumer countertop appliance (See rejections above) but are silent with respect to the filter having a raised center and screen of porosity to direct water flow. Burrows teach of an analogous coffee brewer wherein the filter basket comprises a raised center and a surrounding annular volume as well as screens to prevent coffee ground from passing theretough while enabling water flow (See Figs. 7-10). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the container of Nam et al. to include a coupling which impairs and/or deter reuse of the container after separation as taught by Laithier et al.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 72 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J KASZTEJNA whose telephone number is (571)272-6086. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7AM--3PM.
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, Eileen Lillis can be reached at 571-272-6928. 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.
/MATTHEW J KASZTEJNA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3993
