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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to Applicant’s Response to Election/Restriction filed on 29 May 2026.
Claims 1 – 15 are pending. Claims 13 – 15 are withdrawn.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1 – 12 drawn to a device for filling and compacting powder or granules in the reply filed on 1 April 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that claims 13-15 have been amended to depend from claim 1 and therefore not restrictable. This is not found persuasive.
The examiner notes that claim 13 as amended appears to depend from claim 1, however claim 13 in fact does not positively further limit claim 1 and instead changes the scope of claim 1. Therefore, claim 13 is deemed to be a linking claim that links two separate sub-combinations.
The invention as set forth in claims 13 – 15 is to the specifics of a grinder which does not further limit the device of the invention of Group I, claim 1. The examiner notes that the search for the invention of Group II, claims 13-14 is different from that of the invention of Group I and is separate and distinct, accordingly the election of Group I, claims 1-12 will be examined and the linking claim 13 and claims 14 – 15 are withdrawn.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 25 April 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected for the following reason(s):
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. In the instant application, the abstract is not written in narrative form but in the legal phraseology of a claim – that is, in a single, heavily punctuated sentence.
Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 1 – 12 are objected because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, the term, “Device”, in line 1, should read, “A device”. Additionally, in claims 2 – 12, the term, “Device”, in line 1, should read, “The device”.
Regarding claims 1 – 4, 6, and 8 – 10, 37 CFR 1.75(i) states where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements, each element of the claim should be separated by a line indentation. However, in claims 1 – 4, 6, 8 – 10, and 14 – 15, both indentations and bullets are used to separate the elements of the claim. This is redundant and does not conform to standard U.S. practices.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation, “powder or granules”, in line 17, should read, “the powder or granules”.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation, “the holding element”, should read, “the at least one holding element”.
Regarding claims 1, 2, 7, and 8, the limitations,
Claim 1: “the holding element is designed such that the container can be held on the device at a distance of 0 mm to 50 mm”, should read, “the holding element is configured such that the container is held on the device at a distance of 0 mm to 50 mm”.
Claim 2: “the separate apparatus is designed as a grinder”, should read, “the separate apparatus is a grinder”.
Claim 7: “the diameter of the inlet opening is designed larger than the diameter of the outlet opening”, should read, “the diameter of the inlet opening is larger than the diameter of the outlet opening”
Claim 8: “the device is designed to be handholdable and mobile”, should read, “the device is handholdable and mobile”.
Regarding claim 3, the limitation, “consisting tab, groove, fold, slot, mortise, and notch”, should read, “consisting a tab, a groove, a fold, a slot, a mortise, and a notch”
Regarding claim 3, the limitation, “a central axis”, should read, “the central axis”.
Regarding claims 4, 6 – 8 and 12, the limitation, “the outlet opening”, should read, “the at least one inlet opening”.
Regarding claims 5 – 9, the limitation, “the inlet opening”, should read, “the at least one inlet opening”.
Regarding claim 10, the limitation, “consisting of magnet, tenon, eyelet, hook, tab, loop, screw, prong, burl, and pushbutton”, should read, “consisting of a magnet, a tenon, an eyelet, a hook, a tab, a loop, a screw, a prong, a burl, and a pushbutton”
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 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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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) 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) 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:
“at least one fastening element” in claim 1.
“at least one holding element” in claim 1.
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1 – 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1 – 4, 7 – 9 and 12, the limitations,
Claim 1: “in particular coffee powder” in lines 1 – 2, “in particular into a coffee capsule” in line 2, “in particular wherein the central axis of the device corresponds to a longitudinal axis of the device” in lines 6 – 7, “in particular coaxially along the central axis” in lines 19 – 20, and “in particular wherein the holding element is designed such that the container can be held on the device at a distance of 0 mm to 50 mm” in lines 27 – 29;
Claim 2: “in particular a coffee grinder” in line 2;
Claim 3: “in particular to a longitudinal axis” in line 10;
Claim 4: “in particular wherein the stand has an insertion opening through which the container can be positioned below the outlet opening, and can be inserted into the at least one holding element” in lines 5 – 7;
Claim 7: “in particular wherein the interior is funnel-shaped from the inlet opening to the outlet opening” in lines 2 – 3;
Claim 8: “in particular wherein the device has a height in the range from 6 cm to 14 cm, the device has a width in the range from 2.8 cm to 10 cm, the device has a diameter in the range from 2.8 cm to 10 cm, the device has a weight in the range from 100 grams to 500 grams, the inlet opening has a diameter in the range from 28 mm to 100 mm, the outlet opening has a diameter in the range from 28 mm to 50 mm, and the outlet opening has a diameter that corresponds to the diameter of standard coffee capsule openings” in lines 2 – 10;
Claim 9: “in particular on an end of the plunger that is less distant from the inlet opening” in lines 3 – 4;
Claim 12: “in particular coaxially along the central axis, in particular wherein the movement of the plunger out of the interior through the outlet opening compacts the powder or granules located in the container held on the device by the at least one holding element by pressure exerted on the powder or granules by the plunger” in lines 3 – 6,
are indefinite because the limitations after the term, “in particular” are examples of exemplary claim language. In each case, a broad limitation is given prior to the term, “in particular”, and the limitation after the term, is a narrower limitation (i.e., an example or preference of the broad limitation) thus these narrower limitations after the term, “in particular”, lead to confusion over the intended scope of a claim and it is not clear whether the narrower limitation is part of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2173.05(d). For the purpose of compact prosecution, the examiner deems these narrower limitations after the term, “in particular”, as not being part of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1, 3 – 4, and 11, the limitations,
Claim 1: “the powder or granules can be provided by a separate apparatus”, in line 3;
Claim 3: “an elevation arranged at the opening of the container and projecting perpendicularly to a central axis…of the container can be reversibly inserted into the at least one holding element whereby the container can be temporarily held on the device”, in lines 9 – 12;
Claim 4: “the stand has an insertion opening through which the container can be positioned below the outlet opening, and can be inserted into the at least one holding element” in lines 5 – 7;
Claim 11: “a guide along which the plunger can be moved”, in lines 1 – 2,
are indefinite because the limitation, due to the term, “can be”, is not positively recited and it is not clear whether the limitation is part of the claimed invention. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the examiner deems the term, “can be”, to read, “is”.
Regarding claim 2, the limitation, “the separate apparatus” and the limitations drawn to the separate apparatus are indefinite because claim 1, upon which claim 2 depends, recites in the preamble that the separate apparatus is not part of the device. Therefore, it is ambiguous whether the limitation, “the separate apparatus” and the limitations drawn to the separate apparatus in claim 2 are part of the claimed invention. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the “the separate apparatus” and the limitations drawn to the separate apparatus are not part of the claimed invention and the examiner will treat the limitations drawn to the separate apparatus as recitations of intended use with the device of claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, the limitation, “the direction” in line 2, is indefinite because the limitation lacks antecedent basis. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the examiner interprets the limitation to mean “a direction”.
Regarding claim 8, the limitation, “the diameter of standard coffee capsule openings”, is indefinite because it is ambiguous as to what constitutes a standard coffee capsule opening. The claim element, “standard coffee capsule openings” is not defined by the claim and the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining what is a standard coffee capsule opening, thus one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 – 9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Barnett (US 6,095,032).
[AltContent: textbox (Barnett (US 6,095,032) – annotated figure 1)]
Regarding claim 1, Barnett discloses a device for filling and compacting powder or granules into a container wherein the powder or granules is provided by a separate apparatus and wherein the device comprises:
a lateral surface (surface A, annotated fig. 1) wherein the lateral surface extends around a central axis of the device,
at least one inlet opening (opening B, annotated fig. 1. Figure 1 shows a ground coffee collection chamber 40 having an inlet opening B which is covered by a lid mounted on and screwed into a cover surface C or rim of the ground coffee collection chamber 40) for admitting the powder or granules into the device, wherein the at least one inlet opening extends within a cover surface (surface or rim C, annotated fig. 1) of the device,
at least one outlet opening (opening D, annotated fig. 1) for discharging the powder or granules from the device into the container, wherein the at least one outlet opening extends within a base surface (surface or rim E, annotated fig. 1) of the device,
an interior (the interior of the ground coffee collection chamber 40, fig. 1), wherein the interior is bounded at least by the lateral surface, and connects the inlet opening to the outlet opening,
a movable plunger (50, fig. 1) for compacting the powder or granules contained in the container, wherein the plunger is arranged within the interior and is provided to be moved in a direction parallel to the central axis (74, fig. 1),
at least one fastening element (screw F, annotated fig. 1), wherein the at least one fastening element is provided to cooperate with a corresponding counterpart on the separate apparatus and thus provide a temporary fastening of the device to the separate apparatus (Figures 1 and 2 shows a screw F fastening the lid over the inlet opening B and causing the lid to press upon the housing/corresponding counterpart of a coffee grinding mills/separate apparatus 24. Thus, the screw F indirectly holds or cooperates the housing/corresponding counterpart of a coffee grinding mills/separate apparatus 24), and
at least one holding element (64, fig. 1), wherein the at least one holding element is provided to temporarily hold the container (14, 66, fig. 1) on the device.
Regarding claim 2, Barnett discloses the separate apparatus (24, fig. 1) is designed as a grinder (col. 4, ll. 2 – 5) and the at least one holding element (64, fig. 1) is arranged on the base surface (surface or rim E, annotated fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Barnett discloses the at least one holding element (64, fig. 1) is selected from a group consisting of a tab, a groove, a fold, a slot, a mortise, and a notch (Figures 1 and 2 shows an attachment mount 64 as slots forming a bayonet-type connection between the surface E and a delivery filter 14/filter container 66), wherein an elevation arranged at the opening of the container and projecting perpendicularly to the central axis of the container is reversibly inserted into the at least one holding element whereby the container is temporarily held on the device (As shown in figure 2).
Regarding claim 4, Barnett discloses the device further comprises a stand (base G, annotated fig. 1), wherein the lateral surface (surface A, annotated fig. 1) extends beyond the base surface in the direction parallel to the central axis and thus forms the stand of the device (Figure 1 shows the surface A extending downward in a discontinuous manner into the walls of the base/stand G).
Regarding claim 5, Barnett discloses the plunger (50, fig. 1) comprises a spring (70, fig. 1), wherein the spring provides a restoring force that acts in the direction of the inlet opening.
Regarding claim 6, Barnett discloses the cover surface (surface or rim C, annotated fig. 1) expands perpendicular to the central axis (74, fig. 1), the base surface (surface or rim E, annotated fig. 1) expands perpendicular to the central axis, the inlet opening (opening B, annotated fig. 1) expands perpendicular to the central axis, and the outlet opening (opening D, annotated fig. 1) expands perpendicular to the central axis.
Regarding claim 7, Barnett discloses the diameter of the inlet opening (opening B, annotated fig. 1) is designed larger than the diameter of the outlet opening (opening D, annotated fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8, Barnett discloses the device is designed to be handholdable and mobile (The examiner deems the coffee grinding, portioning, and pressing device 10 of Barnett capable of being held by hand and able to be moved from a countertop).
Regarding claim 9, Barnett discloses the at least one fastening element (screw F, annotated fig. 1) is arranged at a location selected from a group consisting of: on the plunger, on the lateral surface, and on the cover surface (Annotated figure 1 shows the screw F located on the surface or rim/cover surface C).
Regarding claim 12, Barnett discloses the plunger (50, fig. 1) is movable out of the interior (the interior of the ground coffee collection chamber 40, fig. 1) through the outlet opening (opening D, annotated fig. 1) in the direction parallel to the central axis (74, fig. 1) (Figures 2 and 4 shows a rotating pressing tool 50 movable out of the interior of the ground coffee collection chamber 40 through opening D and into the delivery filter 14).
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 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnett (US 6,095,032) in view of Hoare (US 9,301,637 B2).
Regarding claim 10, Barnett discloses the invention as recited in claim 1.
Barnett discloses the at least one fastening element (screw F, annotated fig. 1) is selected from a group consisting of: a magnet, a tenon, an eyelet, a hook, a tab, a loop, a screw, a prong, a burl, and a pushbutton.
Barnett does not explicitly disclose the at least one fastening element is made of a ferromagnetic material.
However, Hoare, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the screws made of a ferromagnetic material (Col. 5, ll.35 – 38 describes using steel screws wherein steel is a ferromagnetic material).
Hoare is evidence that using steel screws was known and within the skill of one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Thus, the one having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success using steel screws as the at least one fastening element. Moreover, it would been obvious to the one having ordinary skill in the art to have used steel screws as the at least one fastening element because the steel screws offer high tensile strength and durability, which allows them to withstand significant loads and stresses, ensuring longevity in structural applications.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnett (US 6,095,032) in view of Govertchinian (EP 3,141,486 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Barnett discloses the invention as recited in claim 1.
Barnett does not explicitly disclose the interior has a guide along which the plunger is moved, wherein the guide provides a stop on which a section of the plunger projecting orthogonally to the central axis and moved along the guide meets after covering a defined distance and thus limits a movement distance of the plunger.
However, Govertchinian, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the interior (the interior of first guide sleeve, 68, fig. 6) has a guide (681, fig. 6) along which the plunger (62, fig. 6) is moved, wherein the guide provides a stop (the upper limit of longitudinal lumen 681, fig. 6) on which a section (721, fig. 6) of the plunger projecting orthogonally to the central axis (axis A’, fig. 6) and moved along the guide meets after covering a defined distance (the distance between a filled container 2 and the initial position of a stud 721 as shown in fig. 6) and thus limits a movement distance of the plunger.
Govertchinian is evidence that having the interior with the guide along which the plunger is moved, wherein the guide provides the stop on which the section of the plunger projecting orthogonally to the central axis and moved along the guide meets after covering the defined distance and thus limits the movement distance of the plunger was known and within the skill of one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Thus, the one having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success modifying the device of Barnett with these structures of Govertchinian. Moreover, it would been obvious to the one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the device of Barnett with these structures of Govertchinian in order to obtain a measurement of the distance that indirectly measures the amount of powder or granules in the container to ensure consistent filling of the containers with the powder or granules.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID G SHUTTY whose telephone number is 571-272-3626. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 5:30 pm, Monday - Friday.
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, SHELLEY SELF can be reached on 571-272-4524. 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.
/DAVID G SHUTTY/Examiner, Art Unit 3731
24 June 2026
Prosecution Insights