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 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: there is two words “the an” in front of the limitation “initially selected target quantity”. It should be written as “an initially selected target quantity.” Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “3” has been used to designate both “an electric motor” and “The motor shaft”. 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. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “Pf” has been used to designate both “the target value”, “the target quantity”, “a desired target quantity”, “the ground coffee”, and “target weight”. 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. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “Pr”” has been used to designate both “the measured quantity”, “the filter holder”, “the actually dispensed dose”, “a dispensed weight”, “the ground coffee dispensed”, and “the dispensed quantity”. 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. 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.
Specification
The interlineations or cancellations made in the specification or amendments to the claims could lead to confusion and mistake during the issue and printing processes. Accordingly, the portion of the specification or claims as identified below is required to be rewritten before passing the case to issue. See 37 CFR 1.125 and MPEP § 608.01(q).
The disclosure is further objected to because the technical features of the invention should be clearly described and should not be referred to the claim, therefore any description referred to the claim such as “… the attached claim 1”, “… dependence claims”, and “… the claims” and/or any other(s) as noted on pages 6, 25, and may be throughout the specification should be deleted and replaced with detailed description as needed.
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: “a weighing device” in claims 1, 2, 3, and 15; “at least one mechanism” in claim 8; and “an element” in claim 13.
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.
Paragraph [0051] of the instant invention publication (US 20240315487) discloses the screen 12 has the function of interfacing with the user of the device and being preferably of the tactile type, it allows the user to execute a series of commands and select settings with which the ordinary and extraordinary operation of the coffee grinder is managed. Among the other functions, it is possible to select the mode for adjusting the quantity of coffee (e.g. by adjusting the operating time of the grinders or allowing the device to determine the corrections based on the comparison between the set weight and the weight found by weighing by an external weighing machine).
Paragraph [0055] discloses advantageously, said channel 7 can comprise at least one mechanism that prevents the formation of agglomerates in the path of the coffee and/or facilitates the dissolution in the air and powder flow which is articulated in the path between the grinding chamber 5 and the outlet area 9. A possible embodiment of said mechanism comprises at least two plates, adapted for being positioned at partial occlusion of the outlet port between the grinding chamber 5 and the delivery channel 7, and at least one element for regulating the outflow having a shape that develops longitudinally inside said delivery channel 7 along a path with an increasing section in the direction of the end facing the outlet area 9.
Paragraph [0057] discloses in the path that the coffee powder performs out of the grinding chamber 5 it is also possible to provide, in at least one embodiment of the invention, the combination with at least one element for regulating the outflow having a conformation that develops longitudinally inside said delivery channel 7 along a path with an increasing section in the direction of the end facing the outlet area 9. In a possible embodiment, said outflow adjustment element is characterized by a geometric figure similar to an elliptical sector, preferably 180° along the major axis, deriving from the intersection of a cylinder, preferably with a circular base, with a plane whose normal is inclined at a predetermined angle with respect to the axis of symmetry of said cylinder and with a second plane whose normal resides in the area resulting from said intersection.
Paragraph [0058] discloses the action of said at least one mechanism, which as just described comprises said at least two plates and said at least one element for regulating the outflow, contributes significantly to the achievement of the purposes of the invention, in particular because avoiding the formation of lumps or agglomerates of coffee powder makes the flow of coffee in the filter more regular and therefore the quantity of ground coffee that ends up in the filter holder is made more linear and predictable. Advantageously, this reduces the formation of agglomerates or generally accumulations of powders along the path from the grinding chamber to the filter holder and even more advantageously it allows the ground coffee to actually end up in the filter holder by equalizing the quantities of powders outflowing from the grinding chamber with the quantities of powders ending in the recipient of destination. In other words, the degree of precision of the grinding is increased, so that the weight remains constant between one dose and the next under the same conditions.
Paragraph [0063] discloses the calibration program of the invention is therefore aimed at determining the period of operation of the electric motor at regime state and uses an external weighing device which provides feedback on the amount of powder actually poured into the filter holder. More weighs are expected to be performed in subsequent periods of time, which are not necessarily contiguous. The values obtained for these weighs are in fact stored and used by the firmware in order to assign a correct time value to each subsequent weigh, which varies over time according to the working conditions. In the event of changes in external conditions (e.g. quality of coffee beans, spacing of the grinders to obtain a different granulometry of the powder) that cause the weighed doses to differ by a significant value from the target weight, the firmware suggests performing a calibration step wherein it records the value found for the weight of the doses, it uses it for the calculation of a new period of motor operation.
Paragraph [0064] discloses with reference to FIG. 4, a block diagram is generally represented from which it can be seen how, unlike other known configurations, the weighing device is arranged separately from the coffee grinder and therefore does not fall directly within the present invention, as it can be any type of device known to the state of the art, although its use is fundamental for the calibration operations implemented by the electronic control unit of the device object of the invention.
Paragraph [0065] discloses the relationship between the weighing device and the coffee grinder can be limited to the fact that an operator manually performs the weighing and reports what is detected to the coffee grinder, for example through the graphic interface of the same, or said relationship can include, in an executive variant, that the two devices are electrically interconnected in order to exchange information on what is detected during the weighing and, optionally, other information such as the tare of the filter holder (which can be a pre-stored value or measured from time to time) in such a way as to reduce the operations required of the operator which, in a simpler form, only has to translate a loaded filter holder from the coffee grinder to the weighing device and vice versa.
Paragraph [0068] discloses should the need arise to perform a calibration cycle, it will then be necessary to perform a series of steps such that the electronic control unit is made aware of the weight of coffee actually ground during an operating cycle of time period T. As already described, this information can be transferred telematically supported by an electrical or wireless or optical connection between the weighing device and the coffee grinder, or such information can be transferred manually by the operator which, in a feasible and simpler form of execution, reads the weighed value from the weighing device and types it into the coffee grinder via a touch screen or similar input device.
Paragraph [0019] discloses in one embodiment, the ground coffee comprises at least a mechanism for adjusting the configuration of said group of grinders in order to vary the granulometry of the ground coffee, to which adjusting mechanism of grinders is associated at least one position and/or status sensor of said group of grinders. The adjustment of the position of the grinders is preferably performed by means of a manual mechanism and the relative displacement is measured by a potentiometer or by an optical sensor, which are connected to the microprocessor of the coffee grinder. The variation of the position of the grinders, and therefore of the mass flow rate in grams per minute dispensed, entails the need to perform a new calibration in order to maintain the target doses. The user will then be informed and will be able to choose to start the calibration process.
Paragraph [0055] discloses advantageously, said channel 7 can comprise at least one mechanism that prevents the formation of agglomerates in the path of the coffee and/or facilitates the dissolution in the air and powder flow which is articulated in the path between the grinding chamber 5 and the outlet area 9. A possible embodiment of said mechanism comprises at least two plates, adapted for being positioned at partial occlusion of the outlet port between the grinding chamber 5 and the delivery channel 7, and at least one element for regulating the outflow having a shape that develops longitudinally inside said delivery channel 7 along a path with an increasing section in the direction of the end facing the outlet area 9.
Paragraph [0058] discloses the action of said at least one mechanism, which as just described comprises said at least two plates and said at least one element for regulating the outflow, contributes significantly to the achievement of the purposes of the invention, in particular because avoiding the formation of lumps or agglomerates of coffee powder makes the flow of coffee in the filter more regular and therefore the quantity of ground coffee that ends up in the filter holder is made more linear and predictable. Advantageously, this reduces the formation of agglomerates or generally accumulations of powders along the path from the grinding chamber to the filter holder and even more advantageously it allows the ground coffee to actually end up in the filter holder by equalizing the quantities of powders outflowing from the grinding chamber with the quantities of powders ending in the recipient of destination. In other words, the degree of precision of the grinding is increased, so that the weight remains constant between one dose and the next under the same conditions.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: ”means for” in claim 14.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Paragraph [0019] discloses in one embodiment, the ground coffee comprises at least a mechanism for adjusting the configuration of said group of grinders in order to vary the granulometry of the ground coffee, to which adjusting mechanism of grinders is associated at least one position and/or status sensor of said group of grinders. The adjustment of the position of the grinders is preferably performed by means of a manual mechanism and the relative displacement is measured by a potentiometer or by an optical sensor, which are connected to the microprocessor of the coffee grinder. The variation of the position of the grinders, and therefore of the mass flow rate in grams per minute dispensed, entails the need to perform a new calibration in order to maintain the target doses. The user will then be informed and will be able to choose to start the calibration process.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 1-15 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "ground coffee" at line 13 renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear for whether this calibration unit is the same as the one recited at line 2-3. If it is so, then "the" or "said" should be used.
It is unclear and indefinite to the relationship between “a determination of the activation period of the electric motor” at lines 23-24 and “determining an activation time period of the electric motor” at line 17 and to whether they are the same or different. Further clarification is required to either further differentiate (at least one electrode) or provide proper antecedent basis.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the activation period of the electric motor” at line 29 in the claim. It is unclear and indefinite to the relationship between “the activation period of the electric motor” at line 29 and “an activation time period of the electric motor” at line 17 and to whether they are the same or different. Further clarification is required to either further differentiate (the activation period of the electric motor) or provide proper antecedent basis. Similar issue with the same limitation “the activation period of the electric motor” at line 32.
Regarding claim 2, the phrase "can be" at line 13 in the claim renders the claim indefinite for not providing positive limitation because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 4, recites the limitation “the activation period of the electric motor” at line 2 in the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear and indefinite to the relationship between “the activation period of the electric motor” at line 2 and “an activation time period of the electric motor” as recited in the preceding claim 1 at line 17 and to whether they are the same or different. Further clarification is required to either further differentiate (the activation period of the electric motor) or provide proper antecedent basis.
The limitation "rotation speed" at lines 6 and 9 renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear for whether this rotation speed is the same as the one recited at line 5. If it is so, then "the" or "said" should be used.
Furthermore, it is noted that using phrases such as “substantially equal to” in claim 4 and “substantially constant speed” in claim 6 renders the claims indefinite because the term "substantially" is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "substantially" is not defined by the claims, 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. It is unclear how much would be considered substantially equal to or substantially constant speed.
Regarding claim 7, recites the limitation "regimen" at line 4 in the claim. It is unclear and indefinite to the relationship between “regimen” and “a regimen state” as recited in the preceding claim 4 at line 6 and to whether they are the same or different. Further clarification is required to either further differentiate (regimen).
Claim 10 recites the limitation "a desired weight" at line 9 renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear for whether this desired weight is the same as the one recited in the preceding claim 1 at lines 33-34. If it is so, then "the" or "said" should be used.
The dependent claims are rejected for their inherited deficiencies on rejected independent claim 1.
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(s) 1-3 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pachi et al. (US 20220000314) in view of Rego Francisco Alfredo (EP 2694216).
Regarding claim 1, Pachi et al. discloses a coffee grinder 1 (fig. 1) configured to control a quantity of coffee dispensed for each dose of ground coffee, comprising:
an electric motor 3 (fig. 3);
a group of grinders (4) driven by said electric motor (3) and housed inside a grinding chamber (5);
a hopper (6) for feeding coffee beans to be ground towards said grinding chamber (5);
a delivery channel (7) for delivering the ground coffee beans towards a support fork (8) configured to hold a filter holder (i.e. any type of filter-holder) to be loaded with the ground coffee beans (¶ 0041, 0044); and
a microprocessor/microcontroller (17) that controls an operation of the electric motor (3) to obtain a desired target quantity of ground coffee (i.e. a desired final weight/dose or a desired value) inside said filter holder (i.e. any type of filter-holder), said microprocessor (17) containing a control firmware configured as a coffee grinder management software encoding instructions that make the said microprocessor (17) and peripherals thereof adapted to carry out the following operating steps (abstract; ¶ 0068-0069, 0074-0076):
a) determining an activation time period of the electric motor necessary for an activation of the said group of grinders to produce a target quantity of the ground coffee (¶ ¶ 0018, 0020, 0021, 0024, 0069);
b) activating the electric motor (3) and causing a grinding of the coffee beans by the said group of grinders (4);
c) commanding (A, i.e. called a start grinding command operation) a stop (F, i.e. called a stop command grinding operation) of the electric motor (3) after a known period equal to the determined activation time period (¶ 0069-0071);
wherein a determination of the activation period of the electric motor (3) comprises an optional calibration step where the activation period is varied to reduce a value of a difference in weight of the ground coffee, calculated between the desired target quantity (i.e. a desired final weight/dose or a desired value) and a dose actually dispensed in the filter holder (i.e. any type of filter-holder), under a predetermined threshold, the coffee grinder (4) being configured to operate alternatively between (¶ 0073-0076, 0083):
a first mode (i.e. operating mode) for regulating the activation period of the electric motor, wherein the calibration step takes place by manually varying, by an operator, the activation period of the electric motor (3) (¶ 0018, 0025); or
a second mode (i.e. direct mode) for regulating the activation period of the electric motor, wherein said calibration step takes place automatically according to a comparison between a desired weight of the ground coffee (¶ 0076, i.e. a target weight (Pr)) and the weight of the ground coffee (i.e. a final weight (Pf) detected by the load cell 16) actually dispensed in the filter holder (i.e. any type of filter-holder) (¶ 0017-0018, 0057-0058, 0068-0070, 0074-0076).
Pachi discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above except for measured of with a weighing device physically separated from the coffee grinder.
However, Rego Francisco Alfredo teaches measured of with a weighing device 60 (fig. 6A-B, 7A-B) physically separated from the coffee grinder (10, 100) (page 7).
The combination of references are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of a coffee grinding apparatus. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Pachi and Rego Francisco Alfredo before him or her, to include such a separate weighing device of Rego Francisco Alfredo because it permits the portafilter basket to be placed directly below the outlet of the output portion of the coffee grinding apparatus. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because user can receiving and storing one or more desired weights entered by a user via an input of a user interface or pre- programmed into a memory of the measurement apparatus (page 8).
Regarding claim 2, Pachi in view of Rego Francisco Alfredo discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Pachi further discloses wherein the microprocessor/microcontroller (17) is programmed to carry out the calibration steps which is configured to implement a calibration sequence (i.e. a calibration program) comprising the steps of:
d) detecting, with the weighing device (abstract), the actually dispensed dose (Pr) of the ground coffee that, through said dispensing channel (7), has reached the filter holder resting on said fork (8);
e) compare the target quantity measured as target weight (Pr) with the measured weight of the actually dispensed dose measured as a dispensed weight (Pf); and
f) evaluating and possibly varying at least one operating parameter of the electric motor (3) as a function of a difference between said target weight (Pr) and said dispensed weight (Pf);
where said calibration sequence (i.e. a calibration program) can be activated by an operator of the coffee grinder (4) on spontaneous initiative and/or on indications of the calibration sequence (i.e. a calibration program) executed by the microprocessor (17) via a man-machine interface (12, i.e. a displace/touch screen; ¶ 0029, 0041) (¶ 0057, 0063, 0068, 0073-0074).
Regarding claim 3, Pachi in view of Rego Francisco Alfredo discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Pachi further discloses wherein said weighing device (abstract) is connected to said microprocessor/microcontroller (17) through a physical communication channel and exchanges one or two-way information data with it said microprocessor/microcontroller (17) (¶ 0043, 0063).
Regarding claim 13, Pachi in view of Rego Francisco Alfredo discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Pachi further discloses an element for regulating an outflow of coffee powder having a specific conformation and elasticity so as to prevent a formation of lumps in the ground coffee and an accumulation of the coffee powder ground along the delivery channel (7) (¶ 0047, 0056).
Regarding claim 14, Pachi in view of Rego Francisco Alfredo discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Pachi further discloses means for manual or automated removal of residues and/or accumulations of coffee powder thickened inside said grinding chamber (5) and/or on surfaces of the organs involved in pulverization and/or in conveyance of the ground coffee into said delivery channel (7) (¶ 0014, 0046).
Regarding claim 15, Pachi in view of Rego Francisco Alfredo discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Pachi further discloses a kit (i.e. a device and/or a machine) for grinding coffee beans comprising (¶ 0001): a coffee grinder (1) according to claim 1 (see claim 1 as set forth above); and a weighing device for weighing the coffee produced by said coffee grinder (1), said weighing device and said coffee grinder being configured to accommodate a container or the filter holder (i.e. any type of filter-holder) for containing the ground coffee (abstract).
Allowable Subject Matter
Dependent claim 4 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 dependent claims 5-12 are allowable for at least their dependence on claim 4.
The following is an examiner' s statement of reasons for allowance: the closest prior art of record are Pachi in view of Rego Francisco Alfredo, the prior art of record references neither discloses, or suggests, in combination with the other limitations of dependent claim 4, “wherein said electric motor activation period of the electric motor is determined according to the following operating conditions of said electric motor:
a starting step, comprising a transition of said electric motor from a rest condition until reaching a known condition of rotation speed;
a regimen state step, comprising an operation in a known condition of rotation speed; and
a stopping step, comprising a transition of said electric motor from the known condition of rotation speed to a condition of rest;
wherein to each of the said starting and stopping steps there are associated a known time duration and a known quantity of dispensed ground coffee; and
wherein at least one operating parameter of the electric motor when operating at regimen is selected so that a detected quantity of the ground coffee dispensed into the filter holder from a beginning of said starting step to an end of said stopping step is substantially equal to an initially selected target quantity.”
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Alessi et al. (US 20180344088). Oddera (US 20170127884, US 20160345778, US 20190254464). And Muheim et al. (US 20190301924)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KET D DANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7827. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Wednesday 7:30 AM - 4:30 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, Steven W. Crabb can be reached at (571) 270-5095. 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.
/KET D DANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/STEVEN W CRABB/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
