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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/08/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of the Claims
In the amendment dated 05/08/2024, claims 1-11 are pending.
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.
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:
“the adjusting mechanism controls the grinding disc to move up and down relative to the cup body” recited in claim 5 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 “mechanism” that is coupled with functional language “controls the grinding disc to move up and down relative to the cup body” without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier
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.
With regards to the corresponding structure of the claimed “adjusting mechanism”, Applicant' s Specification, pub. para.0061 discloses: “the adjusting mechanism 1140 is in a threaded connection with the grinding disc 1120. The grinding disc 1120 can be controlled to move up and down along a sliding track provided by the connection assembly 1130 by rotating the adjusting mechanism 1140, so as to control the fineness of the grinding powder. The adjusting mechanism 1140 is fixedly connected to the cup body 1110 through the screw” and fig.4, the adjusting mechanism has a ring-shape, and it has threads in its inner surface.
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 § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5 and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang (CN103584734A)
Regarding claim 1, Wang discloses A bean grinder container (combo 13,14 and 5, see fig.4 and abstract), comprising
a cup body (13, see figs.4-5) and a grinding disc (14, see figs.4-5), wherein the grinding disc (14) is of a hollow structure (see figs.4-5), a grinding rib (37, see fig.13) is disposed on an inner wall of the grinding disc (14, see fig.13), a connection assembly (5, see fig.4-5) is disposed below the cup body (13, see figs.4-5), the connection assembly (5, see fig.4-5) is fixed below the cup body (13, see figs.4-5), and the grinding disc (14, see figs.4-5) is fixedly connected to the connection assembly (5, see fig.4-5).
Regarding claim 2, Wang further discloses the grinding disc (14, see figs.4-5) is detachably connected to the connection assembly (5, see figs.4-5).
Regarding claim 3, Wang further discloses the grinding disc (14, see figs.4-5) is removed from the cup body (13, see figs.4-5) from below (see fig.4-5).
Regarding claim 5, Wang further discloses the connection assembly (5) comprises an adjusting mechanism (5), and the adjusting mechanism (5) controls the grinding disc to move up and down relative to the cup body (See page 5, lines 32-34: “ When the locking adjustment ring 5 rotates clockwise, the upper grinding wheel assembly 4 can move up and down within a certain range”).
Regarding claim 10, Wang further discloses A bean grinder (29, see fig.1), comprising a bean grinder main machine (15, see fig.5) and the bean grinder container according to claim 1, wherein a lower portion of the bean grinder container (lower portion of 13, see fig.5) is in butt joint with the bean grinder main machine (5) and is detachably connected to the bean grinder main machine (5, see figs.4-5).
Regarding claim 11, Wang further discloses A coffee machine (automatic coffee machine, (see page 1, lines 14-15 and fig.1), comprising the bean grinder (29, see fig.1) according to claim 10.
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Lee (US 20210307558 A1)
Regarding claim 4, Wang discloses the claimed limitations as set forth in claim 3.
However, Wang does not expressly disclose a detachable handle is disposed below the grinding disc.
Lee discloses a coffee extraction apparatus, comprising:
a detachable handle (2125, see fig 6B-6C) is disposed below the grinding disc (231, see fig.6B-6C).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the invention of Wang to incorporate the “detachable handle is disposed below the grinding disc” as taught by Lee. Doing so allows “when the handle is held by the user, it can limit the slipping effect and allow the user to transmit appropriate rotational force” to another parts (See para.0111 of Lee).
Claims 6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Lee (US 20080098901 A1)
Regarding claim 6, Wang discloses the claimed limitations as set forth in claim 1.
However, Wang does not expressly disclose a sealing member is disposed at a lower portion of the cup body.
Lee discloses a coffee mill, comprising:
a sealing member (10, see fig.3) is disposed at a lower portion of the cup body (1, see fig.3).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the invention of Wang to incorporate the “sealing member is disposed at a lower portion of the cup body” as taught by Lee. Doing so allows the container to be “substantially sealed to ameliorate spoiling and/or staling of the coffee beans” (See para.0028 of Wang).
Regarding claim 8, Wang further discloses a cup cavity (cavity inside 13, see fig.13) is disposed at an upper portion in the cup body (13, see fig.13), a relatively outlet of 13, see fig.17) is disposed at a lower portion of the cup cavity (lower portion of the cavity inside 13, see fig.17), and the grinding channel l (outlet of 13, see fig.17) is in communication with the grinding disc (14, see fig.5).
Wang does not expressly disclose a sealed grinding channel.
Lee discloses a coffee mill, comprising:
a sealed grinding channel (13, see para.0026 and fig.3).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the invention of Wang to incorporate the sealing member as taught by Lee so as the grinding channel is sealed. Doing so allows the container to be “substantially sealed to ameliorate spoiling and/or staling of the coffee beans” (See para.0028 of Wang).
Regarding claim 9, Wang in view of Lee further discloses a bottom door (10 of Lee, see fig.3) is disposed in the grinding channel (13, see fig.3), a control mechanism (8 of Lee, see fig.3) is disposed in the cup body (3, see fig.2), a switch (6, see fig.1) is disposed on a side wall of the cup body (3), and the switch controls opening and closing of the bottom door by using the control mechanism (see para.0025, 0029).
Claim 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang
Regarding claim 7, Wang discloses the claimed limitations as set forth in claim 1, except a maximum outer diameter of the lower portion of the cup body is 40 mm to 200 mm.
However, the courts have held that where general condition of claim is disposed in the prior art (see fig.4-5), it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05 IIa). In this case, Wang teaches a certain maximum outer diameter of the lower portion of the cup body, and having a specific maximum outer diameter is not inventive according to the courts. Varying the maximum outer diameter to be 40 mm to 200 mm is recognized as a result-effective variable which is result of a routine experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05). Doing so obtains the desired diameter of the cup body and controls the amount of coffee beans inside the cup body effectively.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US10405700B2 discloses A grinder comprises: a receiving container, formed with an accommodation space and an installation space, and the bottom end thereof being extended with a connection ring have a feeding port, and a hollow grinding seat and a fasten ring are respectively and detachably disposed in the feeding port and the connection ring; an electric driving device, detachably disposed in the installation space.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIFFANY T TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3673. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 10am - 6pm.
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, Edward Landrum can be reached on (571) 272-5567. 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 or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TIFFANY T TRAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
