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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 11 objected to because of the following informalities: the claim amendments were not marked-up to reflect the amendment of claim 1 to claim 9. 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.
Claim 22 is 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 22, the claim depends from claim 12 and recites “the degree of grinding is the first and/or the third degree of grinding” which renders the claim indefinite because claim 12 does not recite a first or third degree, so these phrases lack antecedent basis. For the purpose of examination, this phrase will be interpreted as the degree of grinding is a first or third degree of grinding.
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 1-3, 5-6, 8, 12-17 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2016/0287016 A1 to Lammers.
Regarding claim 1, Lammers teaches a method for the grinding of grinding material by at least one grinder 10 (Abstract), the method comprising:
actuating the grinder 10 in a first direction 28 for grinding of the grinding material (Para. [0076]); and
actuating the grinder 10 in a second direction 28’ different from the first direction (Para. [0076]);
wherein the grinder is actuated in the second direction after completion of the grinding of the grinding material in response to a user input and/or automatically in response to a number of actuations of the grinder in the first direction (Paras. [0076]-[0077]; after a grinder has stopped moving due to a jam, i.e., no actuations have occurred over a period of time, the grinder is automatically actuated in the second direction).
Regarding claim 2, Lammers teaches the method as claimed in claim 1 (Fig. 1), wherein the grinder is actuated in the second direction 28’, preferably automatically, in response to each actuation of the grinder in the first direction 28 (Para. [0077]; the grinder may have a rocking motion in which the direction is regularly changed between forward and reverse).
Regarding claim 3, Lammers teaches the method as claimed in claim 1 (Fig. 1), wherein the grinder 10 is actuated in the second direction 28’ in response to an obstruction to grinding detected during grinding (Paras. [0023] and [0085]; the direction may be reversed in response to a stall condition, and Para. [0023] states an obstruction is one such stall condition).
Regarding claim 5, Lammers teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the actuation of the grinder comprises a movement of a first grinding element 20 relative to a second grinding element 50 (Figs. 1-2; Paras. [0056]-[0058]; the grinding tool 20 rotates within a housing 50 having a delimiting surface that assists in the grinding).
Regarding claim 6, Lammers teaches the method as claimed in claim 1 (Fig. 1), wherein the actuation of the grinder in the first direction comprises a rotational movement in the first direction 28 of the first grinding element 20 relative to the second grinding element 50 (Figs. 1-2 and 4; Para. [0056]), and wherein the actuation of the grinder 20 in the second direction 28’ comprises a rotational movement in the second direction, counter to the first 28, of the first grinding element 20 relative to the second grinding element 50 (Figs. 1-2 and 4; Para. [0056]).
Regarding claim 8, Lammers teaches the method as claimed in claim 5 (Fig. 1), wherein the first grinding element is a grinding rotor 20 and wherein the second grinding element is a grinding stator 50 (Fig. 1; Paras. [0056]-[0058]; the grinding element 20 is a rotor as it rotates to grind the beans and the second grinding element 50 is a stator as it is a stationary element surrounding the rotor).
Regarding claim 12, Lammers teaches the method as claimed in claim 1 (Fig. 1), wherein the method further comprises:
actuating the grinder in the first direction 28 for grinding of the grinding material with a degree of grinding (Fig. 1; Paras. [0056]-[0058]).
Regarding claim 13, Lammers teaches the method as claimed in claim 1 (Fig. 1), wherein the grinding material comprises coffee beans and/or coffee powder and/or the grinder is a grinder for a coffee machine (Para. [0054]).
Regarding claim 14, Lammers teaches the method as claimed in claim 1 (Fig. 1), wherein the grinder is set up to convey grinding material from an input side to an output side with operation in the first direction, and/or in that the grinder is set up to convey grinding material back to an input side with operation in the second direction (Figs. 1-2; Para. [0059]; it is noted that as this claim says “or” only one of these features need to be taught by the reference, and Lammers teaches the grinding element 20 conveys the beans in a first direction from the input side to the output side 57, as shown in Figs. 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 15, Lammers teaches a coffee machine having at least one grinder 20 and a data processing device 44 that is configured for carrying out the method as claimed in claim 1 (Figs. 1-2; Paras. [0056]-[0058] and [0073]).
Regarding claim 16, Lammers teaches the method as claimed in claim 3 (Fig. 1), wherein the user input is adjusting the grinder (this claim depends indirectly from claim 1 which recites the grinder is actuated in the second direction in response to a user input and/or in response to a number of actuations, i.e., the claimed method may be either of those steps, and the rejection relies upon the process in which the change in direction is in response to a number of actuations, i.e., the method step in which there is a user input does not have patentable weight because the alternative option is being relied upon for the rejection).
Regarding claim 17, Lammers teaches the method as claimed in claim 5 (Fig. 1), wherein the movement comprises a translational and/or rotational movement of the first grinding element 20 relative to the second grinding element 50 (Figs. 1-2; Paras. [0056]-[0058]; the grinding tool 20 rotates within a housing 50 having a delimiting surface that assists in the grinding).
Regarding claim 22, Lammers teaches the method as claimed in claim 12 (Fig. 1), wherein the degree of grinding is the first and/or the third degree of grinding (Para. [0069]; as discussed above this claim is interpreted as reciting the degree of grinding is a first degree of grinding, and Lammers teaches that the grinding operation is performed at a required grinding degree, i.e., a first degree of grinding).
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 4, 7, 9-11, and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lammers in view of US 2016/0220067 A1 to Teahan.
Regarding claim 4, Lammers teaches the method as claimed in claim 3 (Fig. 1).
Lammers fails to explicitly teach in that the user input is directed toward cleaning the grinder.
Teahan teaches a coffee grinder and process for operating a coffee grinder including a user input for reversing the grinder direction to clean it (Para. [0036]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the grinder and process of Lammers to include a switch for a user to control the rotation direction of the grinder and a step of pressing the switch to reverse the rotation as taught by Teahan so that a user may manually control the operations of the grinder such as to adjust the grinder.
Regarding claim 7, Lammers teaches the method as claimed in claim 1 (Fig. 1).
While Lammers teaches actuating of the grinder 20 in the second direction 28’ (Paras. [0056]-[0058]), Lammers fails to teach the step comprises an adjustment of the grinder to set a second degree of grinding.
Teahan teaches a coffee grinding process including adjusting the grinder to a second degree of grinding (Para. [0023]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the process of Lammers to include adjusting the grinder to different degrees of grinding as taught by Teahan so that the coarseness of the ground beans may be controlled as well as adjusting the beans to be coarser in situations where the grinding process is at capacity. It is noted that this claim is interpreted as the step of actuating the grinder in the second direction is separate from an additional step of adjusting the grinder to a second degree, i.e., actuating the grinder in the second direction does not cause the grinder to be adjusted to a second degree.
Regarding claim 9, Lammers teaches the method as claimed in claim 1 (Fig. 1).
Lammers fails to teach the method further comprises: adjusting the grinder to set a third degree of grinding.
Teahan teaches a coffee grinding process including adjusting the grinder to a second degree of grinding (Para. [0023]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the process of Lammers to include adjusting the grinder to different degrees of grinding as taught by Teahan so that the coarseness of the ground beans may be controlled.
Regarding claim 10, modified Lammers teaches the method as claimed in claim 1 (Fig. 1; as discussed in the indefiniteness rejection, claim 10 is interpreted as depending from claim 9), wherein the adjustment of the grinder comprises enlarging and/or reducing a grinding gap (Teahan, Para. [0023]; modified Lammers includes the adjustment process of Teahan, which teaches the adjustment causes the grinding gap to be enlarged or reduced).
Regarding claim 11, Lammers teaches the method as claimed in claim 9 (Fig. 1), wherein the adjustment of the grinder comprises a translational movement and/or axial movement of one or the first grinding element relative to one or the second grinding element (Teahan, Para. [0023]; modified Lammers includes the step of adjusting of Teahan, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that an adjustment of the grinding degree in Lammers would require a translational or axial movement of the tool 20 relative to the grinder housing 50 to adjust the gap, e.g., an axial adjustment of the tool in Lammers would change the grinding degree because the gap changes in the axial direction as discussed in Para. [0058] of Lammers).
Regarding claim 18, modified Lammers teaches the method as claimed in claim 7 (Fig. 1), wherein the second degree of grinding is coarser than a previously set first degree of grinding (Teahan, Para. [0023]; modified Lammers includes the adjustment process of Teahan, which teaches the degree of grinding is made coarser).
Regarding claim 19, modified Lammers teaches the method as claimed in claim 7 (Fig. 1), wherein the second degree of grinding is coarser than a previously set first degree of grinding (Teahan, Para. [0023]; modified Lammers includes the adjustment process of Teahan, which teaches the degree of grinding is made coarser).
Regarding claim 20, modified Lammers teaches the method as claimed in claim 9 (Fig. 1).
Modified Lammers fails to explicitly teach wherein the adjustment follows the actuation of the grinder in the second direction and the third degree of grinding is finer than the first and/or second degree of grinding. Modified Lammers teaches adjusting the tool to a third degree of grinding, but is silent regarding if the third degree is finer or coarser than the other degrees.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try having the third degree of grinding be finer than the first and second degrees as there was a known need to control the grinding degree to be at a required level for each grinding process (Lammers, Para. [0069]) and there is only a finite number of solutions with respect to fineness of the third degree of grinding relative to the other degrees (i.e., less than, equal to, or greater than).
Regarding claim 21, modified Lammers teaches the method as claimed in claim 10 (Fig. 1), wherein the grinding gap is a grinding gap between the first grinding element 20 and the second grinding element 50 (Figs. 1-2; Para. [0058]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and remarks dated June 11, 2026, with respect to the rejections under 35 USC 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112 rejections have been withdrawn. However, it is noted that the claim amendments have introduced additional 112 issues, as discussed above.
Applicant's amendments and remarks regarding the 35 USC 102 and 103 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the 102 rejection, Applicant argues that Lammer fails to teach the recited conditions under which the grinder is actuated in the second direction, i.e., “in response to a user input and/or automatically in response to a number of actuations of the grinder in the first direction.” Remarks, PP. 8-10. In particular, Applicant argues that claim 1 recites “a routine, scheduled, or user-initiated post-grinding reversal that is independent of any malfunction or jam event” and Lammers only teaches a reversal in response to a jam. Id. at 8. This argument has been carefully considered and it is not persuasive. Claim 1 is an independent claim that recites a single step of “actuating the grinder in a second direction” and further recites that “the grinder is actuated in the second direction after completion of the grinding of the grinding material in response to a user input and/or automatically in response to a number of actuations of the grinder in the first direction.” Claim 3 depends from claim 1 and recites “the grinder is actuated in the second direction in response to an obstruction to the grinding detected during grinding.” Applicant appears to be arguing that claim 1 recites a method in which a reversal does not occur automatically when a jam is detected, while claim 3 further limits the method of claim 1 to such a situation. As discussed in MPEP 608.01(n), a dependent claim must specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. In this particular situation, claims 1 and 3 only recites a single step of actuating the grinder in a second direction and claim 3 is further limiting the conditions under which the grinder is actuated in the second condition, which would be either in response to a user input or automatically in response to a number of actuations of the grinder in the first direction. Accordingly, “in response to a number of actuations of the grinder in the first direction” is interpreted as including situations in the which the number of actuations is zero for a period of time, i.e., a jam situation, and “completion of grinding” is interpreted as the grinding of the material by actuating the grinder in the first direction has ceased.
Regarding the 103 rejections, Applicant argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to combine Lammers and Teahan because “the prior art itself teaches away from the combination.” Remarks, PP. 10-11. Applicant asserts that Teahan is directed to a burr grinder that seldom stalls according to Lammers and “the jam-prevention feature of Teahan’s high torque burr grinder makes the stall-reversal mechanism of Lammers unnecessary and inapplicable.” Id. This argument has been carefully considered and it is not persuasive. Teahan is not relied upon for teaching any of the stall mitigation features highlighted by the Applicant in their remarks, rather Teahan is relied upon for teaching reversing the direction of rotation in response to a user input and more particular teachings regarding adjusting the degree of grinding. It is noted that Lammers suggests adjusting the degree of grinding (Para. [0069] describes setting up the grinding process to have the “required grinding degree” which suggests that the grinding degree has been adjusted), however Lammers fails to explicitly teach adjusting the grinding degree. Teahan provides more detailed process steps for adjusting the degree of grinding to make it finer or coarser. Further, Teahan also teaches that a user may input directional changes in the rotation for cleaning or maintenance, which is again not related to the jamming features of Lammers highlighted in Applicant’s remarks. Accordingly, this argument is not persuasive because it does not address the combination of art in the rejection.
Applicant also argues that Teahan fails to teach the steps of adjusting the grinding degrees or the user input to change directions of rotation because “these claims require a specific method sequence integrating directional reversal with grinding adjustment.” Remarks, P. 11. This argument is not persuasive because Applicant has not actually pointed to any of the specific method steps that are missing. As discussed above, “after completion of the grinding” in claim 1 is interpreted as anytime grinding is stopped, whether from a jam or by a user inputting a stop. Thus, as discussed above, the combination of prior art teaches the claimed method in the sequence recited in the claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MATTHEW STEPHENS whose telephone number is (571)272-6722. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 930-630.
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, Chris 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.
/MATTHEW STEPHENS/Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/Christopher L Templeton/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights