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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 48-53 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/15/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 54-67 in the reply filed on 06/15/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 56-58 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regrading claim 56, the phrase “wherein said rotatable grinder component further comprises an inwardly extending tooth” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear if “an inwardly extending tooth” is the same as or different from “wherein said rotatable grinder component includes a feature” that recited in claim 55 which claim 56 depends from;
Further, the specification is not clear about “wherein said rotatable grinder component includes a feature”.
Therefore, the claim is unclear and indefinite. Proper clarification is required in the replying to this office action. Thus, the examiner is provided prior art rejection for claim 56 as best as understood.
Claims 57-58 are rejected because they depend from claim 56.
Claim 57 recites the limitation "at least one opening" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regrading claim 57, the phrase “at least one opening” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear if “at least one opening” is the same as or different from “an opening” that recited in claim 55 which claim 57 depends from;
Further, the specification is not clear about “an opening” and “at least one opening”.
Therefore, the claim is unclear and indefinite. Proper clarification is required in the replying to this office action. Thus, the examiner is provided prior art rejection for claim 57 as best as understood.
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 (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 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.
Claims 54-67 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wilson (US20120006922A1).
Regarding claim 54, Wilson discloses a grinder assembly removably connectable to a container (figs.1-3: (2)) of a spice dispenser (abstract, paragraphs 0032-0047, and figs.1-3) comprising:
a stationary grinder component (figs.1-3: (5)); and
a rotatable grinder component (figs.1-3: (4) and (11)) directly coupled to said stationary grinder component (figs.1-3: (5)) to define a grinding chamber (figs.11-13) between a portion of said stationary grinder component and a portion of said rotatable grinder component, wherein said rotatable grinder component is rotatable relative to said stationary grinder component about a grinding axis (paragraphs 0043-0045 and figs.11-13);
wherein said rotatable grinder component includes a feature (figs.12-13: (10)) and when said feature is aligned with an opening (figs.12-13: the recessed (8)) of said stationary grinder component, said rotatable grinder component is translatable along said grinding axis between a plurality of positions relative to said stationary grinder component to adjust a size of said grinding chamber (paragraph 0047).
Regarding claim 55, Wilson discloses wherein said stationary grinder component (figs.10-13: (5)) further comprises at least one outwardly extending protrusion (figs.1-2: see the protrusion of the element (8)), said opening being formed in said at least one outwardly extending protrusion (figs.10-13).
Regarding claim 56, Wilson discloses wherein said rotatable grinder component further comprises an inwardly extending tooth (fig.13: (13)).
Regarding claim 57, Wilson discloses wherein at least one of a radial length of said tooth is equal to or slightly larger than a radial length of said at least one opening (fig.13: (14)) and said tooth is movable relative to said at least one outwardly extending protrusion to define said plurality of positions of said rotatable grinder component.
Regarding claim 58, Wilson discloses wherein said stationary grinder component further comprises a retaining bead (fig.13: (25)) and translation of said rotatable grinder component along said grinding axis is limited by engagement between said tooth and said retaining bead.
Regarding claim 59, Wilson discloses a feature (fig.11: (26)) extending from said stationary grinder component, said feature being movable between a first position and a second position to selectively couple said stationary grinder component to said container (paragraph 0057).
Regarding claim 60, Wilson discloses wherein in said first position, said feature is operable to restrict movement of said stationary grinder component relative to said container, and in said second position said stationary grinder component is separable from said container (paragraph 0057).
Regarding claim 61, Wilson discloses wherein said feature is transformable from said first position to said second position in response to application of a rotational force to said stationary grinder component and said feature in said second position is located radially outwardly of said feature in said first position (paragraph 0057).
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 62-67 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blouse (US20050184177A1) in view of Moosheimer (US20090120559A1).
Regarding claim 62, Blouse discloses a spice dispenser (abstract) comprising:
a container having a hollow cavity (paragraph 0018);
a grinder assembly (fig.1: (18) and (24)) including at least one movable component, said grinder assembly being rotatable relative to said container (paragraph 0021);
Blouse does not disclose a tamper label having a perforation formed therein, said tamper label being mounted to the spice dispenser such that a portion of the tamper label overlaps with said at least one movable component, and said perforation is aligned with a plane of movement associated with said at least one movable component.
Moosheimer teaches a tamper label having a perforation formed therein, said tamper label being mounted to a container in order to have opening of the sealed container is easily and immediately evident (paragraphs 0010 and 0023-0025);
So, Moosheimer is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned,
Both of the prior arts Blouse and Moosheimer are related to
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Blouse by the configuration of a tamper label as taught by Moosheimer, since it has been held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results requires only routine skill in the art. [KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)]. Thereby having a tamper label having a perforation formed therein, said tamper label being mounted to the spice dispenser such that a portion of the tamper label overlaps with said at least one movable component, and said perforation is aligned with a plane of movement associated with said at least one movable component.
Regarding claims 63-67, Blouse discloses the features of grinder assembly; and Moosheimer teaches the features of the tamper;
Therefore, the modification of Ikebuchi in view of LI obviously teaches the limitations of claim 63-67.
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