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 .
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: “vibrator assembly” in claim 6. The specification described vibrator assembly as comprising a cylindrical plunger and a vibration block ([0013]).
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 § 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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 12-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nicholson (WO2023274895).
Re Claim 1, Nicholson discloses a coffee bean grinder (bean grinding apparatus 2), comprising: a housing configured to receive coffee beans (hopper 32); and a cartridge (top mount 16, including upper burr carrier 62, and upper body portion 82) removably couplable to the housing (“The process of replacing the grinding burrs 6, 8 is relatively straightforward. The user first unscrews the rotatable body 64 from the body 4. This removes the bean hopper 32 from the apparatus 2 and permits access to the top mount 16, which can then be removed from apparatus, together with the upper burr carrier 62 and the first upper burr 6a, by lifting it upwards. When the rotatably body 64 is removed from the body 4, the springs 70a located in the pockets 70 urge the top mount upwards via the locating lugs 16e. With the top mount 16 removed, the top nut 28 may be unscrewed and the cylindrical keying element holder 26 and the keying element 22 may then also be removed. This allows the lower burr carrier 20 and the associated first lower burr 8a can then be slid axially from the drive shaft” Pg. 18, Lines 14- 25), the cartridge including: a cartridge base (top mount 16, including upper burr carrier 62) having a radially exterior sidewall (see Fig. 7, annotated below); a cartridge top (upper body portion 82) having a recessed area defined therein (see Fig. 2, annotated below), the radially exterior sidewall of the cartridge base received within the recessed area of the cartridge top (Fig. 2); a grinding chamber (grinding chamber 34) defined between the cartridge base and the cartridge top; and a grinding device (upper burr 6 and lower burr 8) positioned within the grinding chamber (Fig. 2) and configured to grind coffee beans received in the housing into coffee grounds (“the substantially planar grinding surface of each of the burrs includes grinding teeth” Pg. 5 Lines 1-2).
PNG
media_image1.png
878
1069
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
951
1041
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figs. 7 and 2 of Nicholson, illustrated
Re Claim 2, Nicholson discloses the coffee bean grinder of Claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein: the grinding device includes a pair of burrs (upper burr 6 and lower burr 8), the cartridge configured to receive at least one of a conical burr, a flat burr, or a combination thereof (the upper and lower burrs each contain two parts: a pre-grind portion 56 and a planar grinding surface 54. “The pre-grind portion 56 is frustoconical in shape” Pg. 15 Lines 4-5 and constitute a conical pair of burrs. The planar grinding surface constitutes a flat pair of burrs).
Re Claim 3, Nicholson discloses the coffee bean grinder of Claim 2 (see rejection of claim 2 above), wherein: the pair of burrs includes a first burr (upper burr 6) and a second burr (lower burr 8), the second burr coupled to a rotatable base plate (platform 36), the first burr coupled to the cartridge top (“Screws 16d secure together the top mount 16, the upper burr carrier 62 and the upper burr 6” Pg. 15, Line 26), the second burr configured to selectively rotate relative the first burr (“The grinding teeth of the pre-grind portions of the burrs may grip the beans and grind the beans as the rotationally driven burr rotates relative to the rotationally fixed burr” Pg. 5, Lines 31-32).
Re Claim 4, Nicholson discloses the coffee bean grinder of Claim 3 (see rejection of claim 3 above), wherein: the cartridge base is configured to receive the coffee grounds from the grinding device (Fig. 4); and the cartridge includes a plurality of sweeper arms (curved guide fins 40) coupled to the base plate (Fig. 2 shows the sweeping arms are coupled to the base plate as they touch the base plate), the plurality of sweeper arms configured to direct the coffee grounds in the cartridge base to an exit of the cartridge base (“In this way, the beans are guided or urged radially outwards” Pg. 14, Lines 16-17).
PNG
media_image3.png
970
918
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Nicholson, illustrated
Re Claim 12, Nicholson discloses the coffee bean grinder of Claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), further comprising: a selector (On-Off Switch, see Fig. 1, illustrated above) configured to selectively adjust a characteristic of the grinding device.
Re Claim 13, Nicholson discloses the coffee bean grinder of Claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein: the grinding device includes a pair of burrs; and the cartridge is configurable in a flat configuration wherein the cartridge receives a pair of flat burrs (Fig. 2) and a conical configuration wherein the cartridge receives a pair of conical burrs (Fig. 2).
Re Claim 14, Nicholson discloses the coffee bean grinder of Claim 13, wherein: the cartridge is configurable in a combination configuration wherein the cartridge receives at least one flat burr and at least one conical burr (Fig. 2).
Re Claim 15, Nicholson discloses a cartridge (top mount 16, including upper burr carrier 62, and upper body portion 82) configured to be removably couplable to a coffee bean grinder (“The process of replacing the grinding burrs 6, 8 is relatively straightforward. The user first unscrews the rotatable body 64 from the body 4. This removes the bean hopper 32 from the apparatus 2 and permits access to the top mount 16, which can then be removed from apparatus, together with the upper burr carrier 62 and the first upper burr 6a, by lifting it upwards. When the rotatably body 64 is removed from the body 4, the springs 70a located in the pockets 70 urge the top mount upwards via the locating lugs 16e. With the top mount 16 removed, the top nut 28 may be unscrewed and the cylindrical keying element holder 26 and the keying element 22 may then also be removed. This allows the lower burr carrier 20 and the associated first lower burr 8a can then be slid axially from the drive shaft” Pg. 18, Lines 14- 25), the cartridge including: a cartridge base (top mount 16, including upper burr carrier 62) having a radially exterior sidewall (see Fig. 7, annotated below); a cartridge top (upper body portion 82) having a recessed area defined therein (see Fig. 2, annotated below), the radially exterior sidewall of the cartridge base received within the recessed area of the cartridge top (Fig. 2); a grinding chamber (grinding chamber 34) defined between the cartridge base and the cartridge top; and a pair of burrs (burrs 6, 8) received by the grinding chamber and configured to grind coffee beans into coffee grounds, a first burr of the pair of burrs arranged substantially parallel to a second burr of the pair of burrs (Fig. 2), the first burr (upper burr 6) connected to the cartridge top and fixed relative thereto (screws 16d), the second burr (lower burr 8) operably connectable to a shaft and configured to be rotatably driven thereby (“The lower burr 8 is carried on a drive shaft 10, which is rotationally supported in a lower bearing 12 and within an upper bearing 14” Pg. 13, Lines 12-13).
Re Claim 16, Nicholson discloses the cartridge of claim 15 (see rejection of claim 15 above), wherein: the cartridge is configured to receive at least one of a conical burr, a flat burr, or a combination thereof (the upper and lower burrs each contain two parts: a pre-grind portion 56 and a planar grinding surface 54. “The pre-grind portion 56 is frustoconical in shape” Pg. 15 Lines 4-5 and constitute a conical pair of burrs. The planar grinding surface constitutes a flat pair of burrs).
Re Claim 17, Nicholson discloses the cartridge of claim 15 (see rejection of claim 15 above), wherein: the second burr is coupled (lower burr 8) to a rotatable base plate (platform 36) and configured to selectively rotate relative to the first burr (“The grinding teeth of the pre-grind portions of the burrs may grip the beans and grind the beans as the rotationally driven burr rotates relative to the rotationally fixed burr” Pg. 5, Lines 31-32)
Re Claim 18, Nicholson discloses the cartridge of claim 15 (see rejection of claim 15 above), wherein: the cartridge base is configured to receive the coffee grounds from the pair of burrs (Fig. 4); and the cartridge further includes a plurality of sweeper arms coupled to a base plate (curved guide fins 40), the plurality of sweeper arms configured to direct the coffee grounds in the cartridge base to an exit of the cartridge base (“In this way, the beans are guided or urged radially outwards” Pg. 14, Lines 16-17).
Re Claim 20, Nicholson discloses the cartridge of claim 15 (see rejection of claim 15 above), wherein: the cartridge is configured such that the pair of burrs may be selectively removed and replaced by a second pair of burrs (“User of the apparatus 2 is able to replace a first pair of grinding burrs 6a, 8a with a second different pair of grinding burrs 6b, 8b.” Pg. 18, Lines 7-9).
Claim 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu (WO2019169994).
Re Claim 5, Liu discloses a coffee bean grinder (“grinder having a feeding screw” Pg. 2, Line 54), comprising: a housing configured to receive coffee beans (storage cylinder 5); and a cartridge (cutter set 2 including cartridge base and upper cartridge as defined in Fig. 3 of Liu, illustrated below, and dial 23, 21, 211, 22, 221) removably couplable to the housing (Figs. 4-5 show that the storage cylinder 5 is removable from the rest of the device and can be coupled to the rest of the device via an O-ring), the cartridge including: a cartridge base (see Fig. 3 of Liu, illustrated below) having a radially exterior sidewall; a cartridge top (dial 23) having a recessed area defined therein (see Fig. 3 of Liu, illustrated below), the radially exterior sidewall of the cartridge base received within the recessed area of the cartridge top (Fig. 3); a grinding chamber (see Fig. 3 of Liu, illustrated below) defined between the cartridge base and the cartridge top; and a grinding device (upper cutter head 21 and lower cutter disc 22) positioned within the grinding chamber and configured to grind coffee beans received in the housing into coffee grounds (“the brewing material entering between the upper cutter disc 21 and the lower cutter disc 22 can be ground to a predetermined thickness.” Pg. 3, Lines 17-18), and further comprising: an exit chute (discharge port 12) configured to receive the coffee grounds from the cartridge and direct the coffee grounds to a desired location (“The feed port 11 is sent to the grinding chamber 13 for grinding, and the finished brewed material is sent out through the discharge port 12” Pg. 3, Lines 3-4 and grinding chamber 13 is within the cartridge as defined in Fig. 3 of Liu, illustrated below).
PNG
media_image4.png
721
1206
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fig. 5 of Liu, illustrated
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Nocera et al. (US2025/0176763), hereinafter referred to as “Nocera”.
Re Claim 6, Liu discloses the coffee bean grinder of Claim 5 (see rejection of claim 5 above), but fails to disclose a vibrator assembly associated with the exit chute, the vibrator assembly configured to selectively vibrate the exit chute.
Nocera teaches a grinder comprising a vibrator assembly (“kinematic mechanism” [0135]) associated with the exit chute, the vibrator assembly configured to selectively vibrate the exit chute (“This kinematic mechanism, by exploiting the elasticity of the elastic element 31 and its assembly between the fixed element 21 and the oscillating element 22 , determines a reciprocating or vibrating movement of the latter with respect to the fixed element 21 and consequently determines a vibration of the conveyor 13” [0135]) in order to prevent the accumulation of powder on the exit chute (“The vibration of the conveyor, although it does prevent an accumulation of powder inside it” [0020]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the grinder of Liu to incorporate the kinematic mechanism as taught by Nocera in order to prevent ground powder from accumulating on the exit chute. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized a reasonable expectation of success.
Re Claim 7, Liu, in view of Nocera, discloses the coffee bean grinder of Claim 6 (see rejection of claim 6 above), and Liu further discloses a rotatable drive shaft (rotating shaft 31) configured to rotate at least a portion of the grinding device (“The lower cutter head 22 is fixed to the rotating shaft 31 of the driving motor 3, that is, the lower cutter head 22 can be fixed by screwing or the like.” Pg. 3, Lines 23-25); and wherein the drive shaft is configured to vibrate the exit chute via the vibrator assembly (The kinematic mechanism of Nocera works by having a “eccentric element or cam 37 is keyed to the exit shaft 19” [0114] so that “each rotation of the eccentric element, or cam 37 , corresponds to an alternating longitudinal movement, with a stroke “S”, of the cam follower element 39 inside the guide seating 47 and, consequently, a thrust of the oscillating element 22 against the actuation surface 29” [0135]. These elements and their functions of Nocera were incorporated into Liu in the rejection to claim 6).
Re Claim 8, Liu, in view of Nocera, discloses the coffee bean grinder of Claim 7 (see rejection of claim 7 above), and Liu, in view of Nocera, further disclose that the vibrator assembly includes a cylindrical plunger (Nocera, cam follower element 39) and a vibration block (Nocera, actuation surface 29), the vibration block coupled on a first side to the exit chute and on a second side to the cylindrical plunger (Nocera, Fig. 4); and the drive shaft includes a tabbed portion (Nocera, cam 37), the tabbed portion of the drive shaft is configured to intermittently contact the cylindrical plunger when the drive shaft rotates such that the vibration assembly vibrates the exit chute (Nocera, “each rotation of the eccentric element, or cam 37 , corresponds to an alternating longitudinal movement, with a stroke “S”, of the cam follower element 39 inside the guide seating 47 and, consequently, a thrust of the oscillating element 22 against the actuation surface 29” [0135]).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nicholson (WO2023274895).
Re Claim 11, Nicholson discloses the coffee bean grinder of Claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 by Nicholson above), further comprising: a prebreaker (central portion 30) coupled to the cartridge, the prebreaker at least partially extending through the cartridge top (Fig. 2), the prebreaker configured to direct coffee beans into the grinding chamber of the cartridge (“The central portion 30 of the top mount 16 defines three apertures 16b via which beans may exit the hopper 32 and descend under the action of gravity into a grinding chamber 34” Pg. 13, Lines 27-28).
Nicholson does not disclose that the prebreaker is removably coupled to the cartridge and that it is cylindrically shaped.
The prebreaker of Nicholson is not removably coupled to the cartridge because it is integral with the cartridge. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nicholson by making the prebreaker separable, since it has been held that merely making integral features taught in the prior art separable so that they can be removable from each other is an obvious matter of design and/or engineering choice (MPEP § 2144.04 subsection V.C).
The prebreaker of Nicholson is cylindrically shaped. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nicholson by making the prebreaker cylindrical, since it has been held that merely making features taught in the prior art different shaped is an obvious matter of design and/or engineering choice (MPEP § 2144.04 subsection IV.B).
Claim(s) 9, 10, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nicholson (WO2023274895) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cho et al. (KR20240036341), hereinafter referred to as “Cho”.
Re Claim 9, Nicholson discloses the coffee bean grinder of Claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 by Nicholson above), but fails to further disclose one or more sensors associated with the coffee bean grinder, the one or more sensors configured to detect an operating characteristic of the coffee bean grinder.
Cho teaches one or more sensors (temperature sensor 600) associated with the coffee bean grinder (coffee bean grinding device), the one or more sensors configured to detect an operating characteristic of the coffee bean grinder (“The temperature sensor 600 measures the temperature of the upper burr 300 and the lower burr 400 or the surrounding temperature. A temperature sensor 600 may be provided in the hopper 100, and an infrared temperature sensor may be used” Pg. 3, Lines 31-33).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the coffee bean grinder of Nicholson to incorporate the temperature sensor of Cho in order to measure the temperature of the burrs. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that there was a reasonable expectation of success.
Re Claim 10, Nicholson discloses the coffee bean grinder of Claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 by Nicholson above), but fails to disclose one or more sensors associated with the coffee bean grinder, the one or more sensors configured to detect a characteristic of the cartridge removably coupled to the coffee bean grinder.
Cho teaches one or more sensors (temperature sensor 600) associated with the coffee bean grinder (coffee bean grinding device), the one or more sensors configured to detect a characteristic of the cartridge removably coupled to the coffee bean grinder (“The temperature sensor 600 measures the temperature of the upper burr 300 and the lower burr 400 or the surrounding temperature. A temperature sensor 600 may be provided in the hopper 100, and an infrared temperature sensor may be used” Pg. 3, Lines 31-33).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the coffee bean grinder of Nicholson to incorporate the temperature sensor of Cho in order to measure the temperature of the burrs. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that there was a reasonable expectation of success.
Re Claim 19, Nicholson discloses the cartridge of claim 15 (see rejection of claim 15 by Nicholson above), further comprising: one or more sensors associated with the cartridge, the one or more sensors configured to detect an operating characteristic of the cartridge.
Cho teaches one or more sensors (temperature sensor 600) associated with the coffee bean grinder (coffee bean grinding device), the one or more sensors configured to detect an operating characteristic of the cartridge (“The temperature sensor 600 measures the temperature of the upper burr 300 and the lower burr 400 or the surrounding temperature. A temperature sensor 600 may be provided in the hopper 100, and an infrared temperature sensor may be used” Pg. 3, Lines 31-33).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the coffee bean grinder of Nicholson to incorporate the temperature sensor of Cho in order to measure the temperature of the burrs. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that there was a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see “Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 112” , filed June 11th, 2026, with respect to the rejections made under 35 USC 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections under 35 USC 112 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed June 11th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argued:
Regarding the rejection of claims 1-4, 12-18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as allegedly anticipated by Nicholson (WO 2023274895), Applicant respectfully submits that Nicholson does not disclose the claimed peripheral nesting relationship between the cartridge base and cartridge top.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the “claimed peripheral nesting relationship”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Examiner acknowledges that the claimed feature have been incorporated into the amended claim set and Nicholson, as previously mapped, does not teach the amended claims. Accordingly, the previous rejections over Nicholson have been withdrawn. However, Nicholson has been re-mapped and new grounds of rejection over Nicholson has been provided.
At best, Nicholson's lower burr carrier 20 includes "an axially projecting body portion 18" that extends upward. Nicholson, ¶ [0072]. This is a narrow central protrusion, not a radially exterior sidewall received within a recessed area. To the extent the Examiner might point to the upper burr carrier 62 as defining a recess, Nicholson discloses that "[a]n upper burr carrier 62 is secured to a downwardly facing surface of the top mount 16." Nicholson, ¶ [0079]. Any space defined between the upper burr carrier 62 and the lower burr carrier 20 is merely the grinding chamber 34 disposed between the burr carriers-not a recessed area of the cartridge top that peripherally receives the radially exterior sidewall of the cartridge base. As shown in Nicholson's Fig. 2 cross-section, the wall of the upper burr carrier 62 is at best complementary with the upwardly extending structure of the lower burr 8 on the lower burr carrier 20. Indeed, Nicholson explicitly discloses that the upper and lower burrs are "identical and are arranged within the apparatus to face each other such that the pre-grind portions 56 of both burrs 6, 8 face each other and together define a funnel which tapers towards the planar grinding surfaces 54, which also face each other." Nicholson, ¶ [0083].
This confirms the burrs are separate, opposed components-not nested structures where one receives the other. Furthermore, the grinding chamber 34 in Nicholson is defined by the apparatus body 4, not by the upper burr carrier extending downward around the lower burr carrier. Nicholson discloses that "[t]he central portion 30 of the top mount 16 defines three apertures 16b via which beans may exit the hopper 32 and descend under the action of gravity into a grinding chamber 34." Nicholson, ¶ [0073]. The grinding chamber is a space within the body into which beans descend- it is not a recessed area of the cartridge top that peripherally receives the cartridge base.
This further argues the allowability of the features that were not initially claimed, but are included in the amended claim set. See response above.
Moreover, there would be no motivation to modify these structures into a peripheral nesting relationship because Nicholson's "first grind sweepers 42"-each including "a leading face 50 and a trailing face 52"-must remain open to the surrounding grinding chamber to direct grounds radially outwards. Nicholson, ¶ [0077]-[0078]. Nicholson discloses that "[t]he grounds from the burrs 6, 8 are urged radially outwards and are swept into the exit port 46 by the first grind sweepers 42" and into the "exit spout 48." Nicholson, ¶ [0085]. Enclosing the cartridge base within a recessed area of the cartridge top would obstruct this open radial path.
Examiner has not modified Nicholson to reach the present rejection.
Additionally, Nicholson's top mount 16 and lower burr carrier 20 are not coupled to each other-they are separately mounted within the apparatus body 4. "The top mount further includes locating lugs 16e which project downwards from a lower surface of the annular body 16c.... The locating lugs 16e are received by corresponding pockets 70 defined by the body 4." Nicholson ¶ [0082]. The lower burr carrier 20 is separately keyed to the drive shaft 10 via a keying element 22. Nicholson, ¶ [0072]. Neither component is received within the other. Nicholson's multi-step removal process further confirms these are not a unified cartridge. Nicholson discloses that "[t]he process of replacing the grinding burrs 6, 8 is relatively straightforward. The user first unscrews the rotatable body 64 from the body 4. This removes the bean hopper 32 from the apparatus 2 and permits access to the top mount 16, which can then be removed from apparatus, together with the upper burr carrier 62 and the first upper burr 6a, by lifting it upwards." Nicholson, ¶ [0096]. Then, "[w]ith the top mount 16 removed, the top nut 28 may be unscrewed and the cylindrical keying element holder 26 and the keying element 22 may then also be removed. This allows the lower burr carrier 20 and the associated first lower burr 8a can then be slid axially from the drive shaft." Nicholson, [0097]. This sequential process-first removing the top mount, then removing intermediate components (top nut, keying element holder, keying element), and only then removing the lower burr carrier-demonstrates that Nicholson's structure is fundamentally different from a unified cartridge that can be removably coupled to and decoupled from the housing as a single assembly.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “coupled to each other”, “received within the other”, “unified cartridge”, and “removably coupled to and decoupled from the housing as a single assembly”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding the rejection of claims 1, 5-8, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as allegedly anticipated by Nocera (US 2025/0176763), Applicant respectfully submits that the Office Action improperly maps the same prior art structures to separately recited claim elements. Claim 1 separately recites a "cartridge base," a "cartridge top," a "grinding chamber defined between the cartridge base and the cartridge top," and "a grinding device positioned within the grinding chamber." The Examiner has alleged that Nocera's grinder 16a discloses the cartridge base, grinder 16b discloses the cartridge top, the "intermediate grinding zone" discloses the grinding chamber, and the cutting edges 17 disclose the grinding device. However, Nocera discloses that "[e]ach grinder 16a and 16b has a toroidal shape and is provided with a series of protuberances, or cutting teeth 17." Nocera, ¶ [0084]. The grinders themselves are the grinding device. The Examiner treats singular integrated grinding structures (grinders with their cutting teeth) as simultaneously satisfying both the structural cartridge elements (cartridge base, cartridge top) and the grinding device positioned within them.
Under Federal Circuit precedent, separately listed structural limitations presumptively require distinct components, unless the intrinsic record indicates otherwise. Here, the claim language separately recites a cartridge base, a cartridge top, and a grinding device, and nothing in the specification suggests these limitations may be satisfied by the same structure. Accordingly, Nocera does not teach or suggest the claimed arrangement. See Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. Tyco Healthcare Group, LP, 616 F.3d 1249, 1254-55, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2010); Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., 130 F.4th 1372, 1378-83 (Fed. Cir. 2025).
Examiner has considered the amended claim set and agrees that Nocera does not anticipate claims 1, 5-8, and 15 as amended. Accordingly, the rejections of claims 1, 5-8, and 15 by Nocera are withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Liu and Liu, in view of Nocera.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to rejection of claim(s) 1 by Nocera have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Examiner notes that the record presented by the applicant indicates that the parts of the cartridge and the grinding device can be the same component as Applicant repeatedly states that “cartridge base includes flat burrs” (spec. [0038], [0039], [0041], [0042], [0043], [0044], [0046], [0047], [0048], [0049]), where the flat burrs are the grinding device. Examiner further notes that applicant has defined “includes” to means the same as “comprises” (spec. [0057])
Furthermore, even setting aside the distinct-elements issue, Nocera's grinders 16a and 16b each have a toroidal shape. Nocera, ¶ [0084]. There is no recessed area in one grinder that peripherally receives the radially exterior sidewall of the other. The amended claims therefore are not anticipated by Nocera.
Examiner agrees; see above.
Claims 2-4, 5-8, 12-14, and 16-20 depend from amended claims 1 or 15 and are allowable for at least the same reasons. Applicant reserves the right to separately argue the additional features of the dependent claims if necessary.
The § 103 rejections of claims 9, 10, and 19 (Nicholson in view of Cho) and claim 11 (Nicholson alone) each rely on Nicholson as the base reference for the elements of claims 1 and 15. Because Nicholson does not disclose "a cartridge base having a radially exterior sidewall" and "a cartridge top having a recessed area defined therein... the radially exterior sidewall of the cartridge base received within the recessed area of the cartridge top" as recited by amended claims 1 and 15, the combinations with Cho cannot cure this deficiency-Cho teaches only a temperature sensor, not the missing cartridge structure. The MPEP § 2144.04 rationales applied to claim 11 (making separable, change of shape) likewise do not address the recessed-area nesting relationship of the cartridge base and cartridge top. Accordingly, claims 9-11 and 19 are patentable over the cited art for at least the same reasons as claims 1 and 15.
Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that independent claims 1 and 15, as amended, are patentable over the cited prior art. Claims 2-14 and 16-20 depend from allowable independent claims and are therefore also patentable. In view of the foregoing amendments and remarks, Applicant respectfully submits that all pending claims are in condition for allowance. Applicant respectfully requests favorable reconsideration and allowance of claims 1-20.
In response to applicant's argument that the dependent claims are allowable as they dependent from an allowable independent claim, Examiner notes that the rejection of claim 1 over Nicholson is maintained and claims 5 stands rejected over Liu. All claims dependent upon these claims are likewise rejected due to their dependency.
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 WILLIAM D DICKSTEIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1847. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am to 5:00 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 5712701477. 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.
/W.D.D./Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725 /Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights