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
Claims 1, 6 and 14 objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “Coffee grinder comprising” should be changed to “A coffee grinder comprising:”.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “said support having a rear portion and a front portion (61)” should be changed to “said support having a rear portion and a front portion”.
Regarding claim 6, the phrase “the second upper screw (72) is lower than the length of the second threaded through hole (53 b) of the front portion (51) of the load cell” should be changed to “the second upper screw is lower than the length of the second threaded through hole of the front portion of the load cell”.
Regarding claim 14, the phrase “in said through hole of the front portion of the support” should be changed to “in said second through hole of the front portion of the support”.
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 1-14 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 "the weight" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the width" in line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-14 are rejected because they depend from claim 1.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the length" in line 25. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the shank" in line 25. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the length" in line 25. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the transportation" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "said second through hole" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "said safety screw" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regrading claim 12, in line 1 the phrase “said second through hole” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by “said second through hole”.
Regrading claim 12, in line 2 the phrase “said safety screw” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by “said safety screw”.
As best understood and for the purpose of the examination the Examiner interpreted claim 12 is depended from claim 11.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "said second through hole" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the transportation" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "said safety screw" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regrading claim 13, in line 2 the phrase “said second through hole” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by “said second through hole”.
Regrading claim 13, in lines 2-3 the phrase “said safety screw” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by “said safety screw”.
As best understood and for the purpose of the examination the Examiner interpreted claim 13 is depended from claim 11.
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.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rego (US20160374513A1).
Regarding claim 1, Rego discloses a coffee grinder comprising:
a base (fig.12: (100)) whereon a frame (fig.8: (1)) is mounted;
a grinding unit arranged in the frame; an electric motor that drives the grinding unit (paragraphs 0055 and 0121: grinder, and the grinder should have an electrical motor in order to operate the grinder);
Rego does not explicitly discloses a hopper ending into the grinding unit for feeding coffee beans; however, the coffee bean grinder should have a receiving mechanism for receiving the coffee beans and passing the coffee beans to the grinder,
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to a hopper ending into the grinding unit for feeding coffee beans in for the purpose of receiving the coffee beans and passing the coffee beans to the grinder.
a dispenser (fig.1: (2)) in communication with the grinding unit for dispensing coffee powder (paragraph 0094);
a bracket movably (fig.21-22: (213)) mounted in a front partition arranged on the base (fig.12), said bracket having a seat suitable (fig.21-22: (212)) for supporting a filter holder (fig.21: (P)) so that a filter of the filter holder is disposed under the dispenser for receiving the coffee powder (fig.1) (paragraphs 0113-0117);
a load cell (fig.21-22: (224)) connected to said bracket for measuring the weight of the coffee powder contained in the filter of the filter holder arranged in the seat of the bracket, said load cell having a rear portion (fig.22: (226)) and a front portion fixed to said bracket (fig.22: (228)); and
a support (fig.22: (201)) fixed to the base, said support having a rear portion and a front portion (fig.22: the rear portion and front portion of the element (201));
wherein the load cell is mounted on the support so that the rear portion (fig.22: (226)) of the load cell is securely fixed to the rear portion of the support and the front portion of the load cell is spaced away from the front portion of the support in such a way to leave a gap (fig.22: (GB)) between the front portion of the support and the front portion of the load cell; wherein the width of the gap is such to permit a downward bending of the front portion of the load cell that is lower than a maximum load limit of the load cell (paragraph 0116).
Regarding claim 2, Rego discloses wherein the load cell has a parallelepiped shape having a length greater than a width (fig.19: (224))
Rego does not disclose the support has a length equal to the length of the load cell and a width equal to the width of the load cell;
However, choosing the dimensions of the pats is very known in art and a matter of routine engineering design choice that depends on the general design of the grinder and specific requirements of the grinder as desired;
Therefore; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select the desired size of the support relative to size of the load cell as desired, including the support has a length equal to the length of the load cell and a width equal to the width of the load cell; in order to obtain a configuration of the support and the load cell with specific dimensions as desired.
Regarding claim 3, Rego does not disclose wherein the support has an H-shaped longitudinal section.
However, choosing the shape of the pats is very known in art and a matter of routine engineering design choice that depends on the general design of the grinder and specific requirements of the grinder as desired;
Therefore; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select the desired shape of the support as desired, including; in order to obtain a support with specific shape as desired.
Regarding claim 4, Rego discloses wherein the support is fixed to the base in such a way that a longitudinal axis of the support is disposed at a centerline of the base, and the front portion of the support is close to the front partition of the base (fig.18).
Regarding claim 5, Rego discloses first screw means securing the rear portion of the support to the base and the rear portion of the load cell to the rear portion of the support; second screw means securing the front portion of the support to the base; and third screw means securing the bracket to the front portion of the load cell (figs.13 and 19-22, paragraph 97).
Regarding claim 6, Rego does not disclose the limitations of claim 6;
However, Rego discloses each of the support, the load cell, the bracket and the base having a plurality hole for receiving a plurality of fasteners for assembling the support, the load cell, the bracket and the base all together (figs.13 and 19-22, paragraph 97);
Further, choosing the configuration of the fixing means for assembling the mechanical parts is very known in art and a matter of routine engineering design choice that depends on the general design of the grinder and specific requirements of the grinder as desired;
Therefore; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select the desired configuration of the fixing means in order to obtain a configuration of the support and the load cell with specific dimensions as desired.
Regarding claim 7, Rego discloses a safety system for locking the load cell in position during the transportation of the coffee grinder, so as to prevent the front portion of the load cell from bending due to accidental impacts on the seat of the bracket (paragraphs 0007, 0043, 0055 and 0089).
Regarding claim 9, Rego discloses comprising a safety system for locking the load cell in position during the transportation of the coffee grinder, so as to prevent the front portion of the load cell from bending due to accidental impacts on the seat of the bracket (paragraphs 0007, 0043, 0055 and 0089).
Regarding claims 8 and 10-14, Rego does not disclose the limitations of claims 8 and 10-14;
However, Rego discloses a safety system for locking the load cell in position paragraphs 0007, 0043, 0055 and 0089);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to substitute the safety means of Rego by any equivalent safety means in order to protect the load cell from damaging (Reg: paragraph 0007). In Smith v. Hayashi, 209 USPQ 754 (Bd. of Pat. Inter. 1980). MPEP 2144.06.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED S ALAWADI whose telephone number is (571)272-2224. The examiner can normally be reached 08:00 am- 05:00 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 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.
/MOHAMMED S. ALAWADI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725