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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to for the following reasons:
Figures 11A, 24 and 26-27 are objected to since they contain photographs despite not being of subject matter that can only be shown by photograph in violation of 37 CFR 1.84(b).
None of the drawings are on a white background as required by 37 CFR 1.84(e).
Figures 19-40 have shading that is not uniformly thick and well defined within the drawings in violation of 37 CFR 1.84(l).
Figure 24 does not use the abbreviation “FIG.” in violation of 37 CFR 1.84(u)(1).
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.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim recites the singular form “includes” where the plural form “include” is required (line 2). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 28 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim omits the word “is” between “door” and “angled” (line 2). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 31 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim omits the term ‘in which” between “claim 1” and “a paper storage compartment” (line 1). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 33 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim uses the term “includes” where “including” would be appropriate (line 2). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 34 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim uses the term “includes” where “including” would be appropriate (line 1). 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 1-37 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites the limitation “the blade members being of different sizes and shapes for refining an amount of the loose product” (lines 12-13). It is unclear whether this limitation requires each and every blade member to be of a different size and shape for every other blade member, or whether it allows for sets of blades having the same size and shape, as long as there is at least one blade with a different size and shape. The claim is therefore indefinite. For the purposes of this Office action, the limitation will be interpreted as if it required sets of blades having the same size and shape, as long as there is at least one blade with a different size and shape. Claims 2-37 are indefinite by dependence.
Regarding claim 4, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the inner blade member” (lines 1-2) in the claim, rendering the claim indefinite. For the purposes of this Office action, the limitation will be interpreted as if it recited an inner blade member.
Regarding claim 5, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the set of middle blade members” (lines 1-2) in the claim, rendering the claim indefinite. For the purposes of this Office action, the limitation will be interpreted as if it recited a set of middle blade members.
Regarding claim 6, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “a set of outer blade members” (lines 1-2) in the claim, rendering the claim indefinite. For the purposes of this Office action, the limitation will be interpreted as if it recited a set of outer blade members. Claim 7 is indefinite by dependence.
Regarding claim 9, it is unclear what shapes are considered “half-moon shaped” (line 2). The specification uses the term “half-moon shaped” [00016], however, it does not provide further guidance. One of ordinary skill in the would therefore be left unsure as to what shapes fall within the metes and bounds of the claim. Does this limitation mean a crescent, a half-oval shape, a semi-circle, or other possible shapes? The claim is therefore indefinite. For the purposes of this Office action, the limitation will be interpreted as if it required any curved shape.
Regarding claim 12, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the sieving body floor” (line 2) in the claim, rendering the claim indefinite. For the purposes of this Office action, the limitation will be interpreted as if it recited a sieving body floor.
Regarding claim 13, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the upstanding, circumferentially disposed wall” (line 3) in the claim, rendering the claim indefinite. For the purposes of this Office action, the limitation will be interpreted as if it recited an upstanding, circumferentially disposed wall.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the upstanding mounting post” (lines 4-5), rendering the claim indefinite. For the purposes of this Office action, the limitation will be interpreted as if it recited an upstanding mounting post. Claims 14-19 are indefinite by dependence.
Regarding claim 15, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the each of the outer openings” (lines 1-2), rendering the claim indefinite. For the purposes of this Office action, the limitation will be interpreted as if it recited the set of outer openings.
The term “large end” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “large end” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The specification recites “large end” [00019], but does not provide any examples that would be considered large. For the purposes of this Office action, the limitation will be interpreted as if it recited a larger end.
The term “narrow end” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “narrow end” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The specification recites “narrow end” [00019], but does not provide any examples that would be considered narrow. For the purposes of this Office action, the limitation will be interpreted as if it recited a narrower end. Claims 16-19 are indefinite by dependence.
Regarding claim 16, the term “large end” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “large end” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The specification recites “large end” [00019], but does not provide any examples that would be considered large. For the purposes of this Office action, the limitation will be interpreted as if it recited a larger end.
The term “narrow end” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “narrow end” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The specification recites “narrow end” [00019], but does not provide any examples that would be considered narrow. For the purposes of this Office action, the limitation will be interpreted as if it recited a narrower end. Claim 17 is indefinite by dependence.
Regarding claim 17, it is unclear whether the limitation “the large ends” (line 1) refers to the large ends of the set of inner openings or the large ends of the set of outer openings, rendering the claim indefinite. For the purposes of this Office action, the limitation will be interpreted as if it referred to the large ends of the set of inner openings.
Regarding claim 18, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the refined product” (line 3), rendering the claim indefinite. For the purposes of this Office action, the limitation will be interpreted as if it recited a refined product. Claim 19 is indefinite by dependence.
Regarding claim 19, The term “narrow zone” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “narrow zone” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The specification recites “narrow zone” [00020], but does not provide any examples that would be considered narrow. For the purposes of this Office action, the limitation will be interpreted as if it recited a zone.
Regarding claim 27, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the refined product” (line 3), rendering the claim indefinite. For the purposes of this Office action, the limitation will be interpreted as if it recited a refined product.
Regarding claim 29, the term “of sufficient size to accommodate one or more lights of various sizes” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “of sufficient size to accommodate one or more lights of various size” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Applicant’s specification provides literal support for this limitation but does not provide any specific dimensions of the compartment that would be sufficient.
Regarding claim 34, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the elongate outer sidewalls” (line 2), rendering the claim indefinite. For the purposes of this Office action, the limitation will be interpreted as if it recited elongate outer sidewalls.
Regarding claim 37, it is unclear whether the claim further limits claim 36. Claim 36 could be interpreted as requiring either loose tobacco or herbs, or requiring both in combination. If the latter interpretation of claim 36 is accepted, then claim 37 would improperly broaden claim 36 since claim 37 excludes herbs. It is therefore unclear whether claim 37 further limits claim 36, rendering the claim indefinite. For the purposes of this Office action, claim 37 will be interpreted as if it did not further limit claim 36.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 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. Claims 2-37 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Kang (KR 200445689, machine translation relied upon) teaches a garlic chopping device that shops garlic by rotating the lid (page 1, bottom, figure 4, reference numeral 14) that has a handle portion on the surface of the lid (page 5, bottom, figure 4, reference numeral 16). A rotary handle is installed in the handle portion and rotated to move cutting knives relative to each other (page 6, bottom, page 7, top, figure 4, reference numeral 28). The handle portion forms a recess into which the rotary handle is held (figure 4). However, Kang does not teach or suggest the handle cooperating with a penannular upstanding sidewall.
Grumbacher (US 9,737,092) teaches an herbal grinder and reservoir having a grinder top (figure 4, reference numeral 4) that contains upper knives (column 7, lines 1-31, figure 4, reference numeral 10). However, Grumbacher does not teach or suggest the top having a handle that interacts with a penannular upstanding sidewall.
Aryanpanah (US 11,224,311) teaches a grinder safety cap suitable for medicinal herbs (abstract) that has a base shell (column 10, lines 4-23, figure 8, reference numeral 102) that has a single opening (figure 8, reference numeral 107) that connects with a cover shell (column 10, lines 24-38, figure 8, reference numeral 107). However, Aryanpanah does not teach or suggest the safety cap having a handle movable between two configurations.
The prior art does not teach or suggest a modular apparatus for refining a loose product having a product processing body including a cap body having a plurality of spaced apart blade members, wherein the cap body include an upper end portion having an upper end portion floor with a penannular upstanding sidewall connected thereto, and a handle member hingeably connected to the upper end portion floor for movement between a default storage configuration in which the handle member is coplanar with the upper end portion, and a refining configuration in which the handle member is disposed generally orthogonal to the upper end portion, the handle member being sized and shaped to permit rotation of the cap body to permit rotation movement during the product refining operation, the handle member having a handle projection for cooperation with the penannular sidewall in the default storage configuration.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUSSELL E SPARKS whose telephone number is (571)270-1426. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am-5 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, Philip Louie can be reached at 571-270-1241. 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.
/RUSSELL E SPARKS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1755