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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/24/2026 with respect the prior art of Rego (US20160374513A1) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argued that “the element indicated by the reference "201" is suggested to be the "support". However, the text of the Rego publication specifically states that element 201 is the "base" of the machine. In fact, element 201 has support feet and is therefore not securely fixed, with screws, to the base of the machine. Furthermore, the gap GB is between the connector 232 of the bracket 213 and the base 201. It is not between the front part 228' of the load cell in the front part of the support (not present in Figure 22 of the Rego publication). As such, Applicant respectfully contends that the present invention, as defined by independent claim 15, is neither shown nor suggested by the Rego publication”.
In response to this argument, the Applicant is corrected that “the text of the Rego publication specifically states that element (201) is the base,
However, the element (201) is an element providing a support to the element (224); and a gap between the front portion of the support and the front portion of the load cell (fig.22: (228)) (see fig.22 below).
Accordingly, this argument is not persuasive.
PNG
media_image1.png
582
730
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 15-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rego (US20160374513A1).
Regarding claim 15, Rego discloses a coffee grinder apparatus comprising:
a base (fig.12: (100)) whereon a frame (fig.8: (1)) is mounted;
a grinding unit affixed to the frame; an electric motor drivingly connected to said 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 said grinding unit and adapted to dispense ground coffee (paragraph 0094);
a bracket (fig.21-22: (213)) movably mounted in a front partition arranged on said base (fig.12), said bracket having a seat (fig.21-22: (212)), the seat supporting a filter holder (fig.21: (P)), the filter holder adapted to receive a filter under said dispenser such that the filter receives ground coffee (fig.1) (paragraphs 0113-0117);
a load cell (fig.21-22: (224)) connected to said bracket, said load cell adapted to measure a weight of the ground coffee in the filter of the filter holder, 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), see fig.22 above) fixed to said base, said support having a rear portion and a front portion (see fig.22 above),
wherein the said cell is mounted on said support such that the rear portion (fig.22: (226)) of said load cell is securely fixed and the front portion of said load cell is spaced away from the front portion of said support (see fig.22 above) so as to define a gap (fig.22: (GB)) between the front portion of said support and the front portion of said load cell, wherein the gap has a width that permits a downward bending of the front portion of said load cell that is less than a maximum load limit of said load cell (paragraph 0116).
Regarding claim 16, Rego discloses wherein said load cell has a parallelepiped shape having a length dimension that is greater than a width dimension (fig.19: (224)) thereof,
Rego does not disclose wherein said support has a length dimension equal to the length dimension of said load cell and a width dimension equal to the width dimension of said 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 17, 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 18, Rego discloses wherein said support is fixed to said base such that a longitudinal axis of said support is disposed at a centerline of said base, said support having the front portion adjacent to the front portion of said base (figs.13 and 19-22, paragraph 97).
Regarding claim 19, Rego discloses a first screw securing the rear portion of said support to said base and the rear portion of said load cell to the rear portion of said support; a second screw securing the front portion of said support to said base; and a third screw securing said bracket to the front portion of said load cell (figs.13 and 19-22, paragraph 97).
Regarding claim 20, Rego does not disclose the limitations of claim 20;
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 21, Rego discloses a safety system that locks said load cell in a position so as to prevent the front portion of the said load cell from bending (paragraphs 0007, 0043, 0055 and 0089).
Regarding claims 22-28, Rego does not disclose the limitations of claims 22-28;
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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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
Prosecution Insights