Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/18/2026 with respect Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argued that “as recited in claim 1, the claimed structure is that each of the track portions spiral in the longitudinal direction about the rotation axis by a dwell angle, the first region being in a first half of the dwell angle and the second region being in a second half of the dwell angle, and the first half is an upper half of the respective track portion and the second half is a lower half of the respective track portion. The claimed structure results in a function that is different from Chen's adjustment mechanism. In particular, Applicant's Specification teaches that when the follower portions are in the first region (e.g., with the first larger pitch), "rotation would result in a larger longitudinal movement of the burr portion. .. for a coarse grind range," and when the follower portions are in the second region (with the second smaller pitch), "rotation would result in a smaller longitudinal movement of the burr portion ... for a finer, espresso, [] grinding range. The varying pitch profile of the track portions results in a greater resolution for fine tuning espresso grind." See Applicant's Specification as-published, [0064]-[0065]”.
In response to this argument, paragraphs 0064-0065 of the Applicant’s specification as published discussed the relation of the follower portion and the first region and second region, and there is nothing in paragraphs 0064-0065 regarding “wherein the first half is an upper half of the respective track portion and the second half is a lower half of the respective track portion”;
Further, paragraph 0014 of the Applicant’s specification as published discloses: “The first region may be in a first half of the dwell angle and the second region being in a second half of the dwell angle. Preferably, the first half is an upper half of the respective track portion and the second half is a lower half of the respective track portion. Alternatively the second half is an upper half of the respective track portion and the first half is a lower half of the respective track portion; The dwell angle may be at least 10%, at least 20%, at least 30%, at least 40% or at least 50%, or at least about 100% of the first angle. The dwell angle may be between about 40% and 50% of the first angle. Preferably, where the track portions include three track portions, the dwell angle is about 170°”;
paragraph 0015 of the Applicant’s specification as published discloses: “The first pitch may be at least about 2 times larger than the second pitch. For example, the first pitch may be at least about 5 times larger, about 10 times larger, or about 20 times larger than the second pitch”; and
paragraph 0016 of the Applicant’s specification as published discloses: “the first pitch may be at least about 5 μm/°, at least about 10 μm/°, at least about 15 μm/°, or at least about 20 μm/° for example. Preferably, the first pitch is between about 20 μm/° and 40 μm/°. Further preferably, the first pitch is between about 25 μm/° and 35 μm/°. Even further preferably, the first pitch is about 27 μm/°.” paragraph 0017 of the Applicant’s specification as published discloses: the second pitch may be up to about 5 μm/°, up to about 10 μm/°, up to about 15 μm/°, or up to about 20 μm/° for example. Preferably, the second pitch is between about 1 μm/° and 5 μm/°. Further preferably, the second pitch is between about 2 μm/° and 3 μm/°. Even further preferably, the second pitch is about 2.4 μm/°”;
So, it appears having “wherein the first half is an upper half of the respective track portion and the second half is a lower half of the respective track portion”; size and dimensions are not critical and a design choice;
Further, choosing the arrangement, size and dimensions of the parts is very known in art and a matter routine design engineering design choice that depends on the general design and the required size and dimensions of the parts as desired;
Therefore; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select the arrangement, size and dimensions of parts as desired, in order to obtain parts with specific dimensions as desired.
Further, choosing the arrangement, size and dimensions of the parts is very known in art and a matter routine design engineering design choice that depends on the general design and the required size and dimensions of the parts as desired;
Therefore; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select the size and dimensions of parts as desired, in order to obtain parts with specific dimensions as desired.
Accordingly; this argument is not persuasive.
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 1-6 and 9-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (CN112471929A attached NPL, English Machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Chen discloses a burr-adjustment system for a coffee grinder (paragraphs 0005-0007, 0038-0043), the burr-adjustment system including:
a burr portion (fig.1: (30)) for a first grinding burr (fig.1: (20)); and
a guide (fig.1: (41), (42) and (50)) for coupling to the coffee grinder, the guide being engageable with the burr portion via an engagement feature (fig.1: (31, (41) and (42)) such that, when engaged, the guide is rotatable about a rotation axis with respect to the burr portion to longitudinally adjust the burr portion relative to the guide (paragraphs 0053-0054),
wherein the engagement feature includes:
track portions (fig.1: (41) and (42)) that are angularly and/or longitudinally offset with respect to each other about the rotation axis, each of the track portions spiraling in a longitudinal direction about the rotation axis and having a pitch profile (paragraphs 0047-0048; figs.4-7: see the various pitch of the tracks) with a first pitch in a first region (fig.4: (401) and a second pitch (fig.4: (402); also fig.7: see the element (408) having the first pitch on the left side and second pitch on the right side), that is less than the first pitch, in a second region, the pitch profiles of the track portions being substantially similar (figs.4 and 7), and
follower portions (fig.1: (31)) that are angularly and/or longitudinally offset with respect to each other about the rotation axis, each of the follower portions being engageable with a respective track portion of the track portions (paragraphs 0039-0040 and 0053),
wherein the rotation of the guide with respect to the burr portion about the rotation axis causes each of the follower portion to be guided along the respective track portion to which each of the follower portions is engaged to thereby longitudinally adjust the burr portion with respect to the guide (paragraph 0040),
wherein the follower portions transition between the first and second regions of the respective track portions in unison upon rotation of the guide with respect to the burr portion (inherently, the elements (31) transition between the first and second regions in unison);
wherein each of the track portions spiral in the longitudinal direction about the rotation axis by a dwell angle, the first region being in a first half of the dwell angle and the second region being in a second half of the dwell angle (fig.4)
Chen does not disclose wherein the first half is an upper half of the respective track portion and the second half is a lower half of the respective track portion;
However, the Applicant specification paragraph 0014 discloses: the first half is an upper half of the respective track portion and the second half is a lower half of the respective track portion. Alternatively, the second half is an upper half of the respective track portion and the first half is a lower half of the respective track portion
So, it appears having “wherein the first half is an upper half of the respective track portion and the second half is a lower half of the respective track portion”; size and dimensions are not critical and a design choice;
Further, choosing the arrangement, size and dimensions of the parts is very known in art and a matter routine design engineering design choice that depends on the general design and the required size and dimensions of the parts as desired;
Therefore; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select the arrangement, size and dimensions of parts as desired, in order to obtain parts with specific dimensions as desired.
Regarding claim 2, Chen discloses wherein the track portions are angularly offset with respect to each other about the rotation axis by a first angle that is 3600 divided by a number of track portions; and the follower portions are angularly offset with respect to each other about the rotation axis also by the first angle (figs.1-2).
Regarding claim 3, Chen discloses wherein the track portions are longitudinally offset with respect to each other and the follower track portions are longitudinally offset with respect to each other (figs.1-3).
Regarding claim 4, Chen discloses wherein the track portions include three track portions and the follower portions include at three follower portions each follower portion being engageable with a respective track portion (paragraph 0053).
Regarding claim 5, Chen discloses wherein the guide (fig.1: (41), (42) and (50)) includes the track portions (fig.1: (41) and (42)) and the burr portion (fig.1: (30)) includes the follower portions (fig.1: (31)).
Regarding claim 6, Chen discloses wherein, for each track portion, the second region is at a lower elevation than the first region (fig.4).
Regarding claim 13, Chen discloses wherein each track portion is a groove and each follower portion is a protrusion that is locatable in the groove of the respective track portion (figs.1-3).
Regarding claims 9-12, Chen does not disclose wherein the dwell angle is 170°; wherein the first pitch is at least 10 times larger than the second pitch; wherein the first pitch is 27 pm/°; wherein the second pitch is 2.4 μm/°;
However, paragraph 0015 of the Applicant’s specification discloses: “The first pitch may be at least about 2 times larger than the second pitch. For example, the first pitch may be at least about 5 times larger, about 10 times larger, or about 20 times larger than the second pitch”; and
paragraph 0016 of the Applicant’s specification discloses: “the first pitch may be at least about 5 μm/°, at least about 10 μm/°, at least about 15 μm/°, or at least about 20 μm/° for example. Preferably, the first pitch is between about 20 μm/° and 40 μm/°. Further preferably, the first pitch is between about 25 μm/° and 35 μm/°. Even further preferably, the first pitch is about 27 μm/°.” paragraph 0017 of the Applicant’s specification discloses: the second pitch may be up to about 5 μm/°, up to about 10 μm/°, up to about 15 μm/°, or up to about 20 μm/° for example. Preferably, the second pitch is between about 1 μm/° and 5 μm/°. Further preferably, the second pitch is between about 2 μm/° and 3 μm/°. Even further preferably, the second pitch is about 2.4 μm/°”;
So, it appears having “wherein the dwell angle is 170°; wherein the first pitch is at least 10 times larger than the second pitch; wherein the first pitch is 27 pm/°; wherein the second pitch is 2.4 μm/°” is not critical and a design choice;
Further, choosing the arrangement, size and dimensions of the parts is very known in art and a matter routine design engineering design choice that depends on the general design and the required size and dimensions of the parts as desired;
Therefore; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select the arrangement, size and dimensions of parts as desired, in order to obtain parts with specific dimensions as desired.
Regarding claim 14, Chen discloses the engagement feature has a plurality of entry regions, each entry region being for the respective follower portion and leading to the track portion (figs.1-2).
Chen does not disclose wherein each follower portion has a width that is different from a width of the other follower portion(s);
Chen discloses the flowers (fig.1: (31));
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to substitute the flowers means of Chen by any equivalent flowers means, including wherein each follower portion has a width that is different from a width of the other follower portion in order enhance the stability of the inner adjustment ring 30 during device operation (Chen: paragraph 0040). MPEP 2144.06.
Regarding claim 15, Chen discloses wherein the burr portion (fig.1: (30)) is a burr holder for removably receiving a first grinding burr (fig.1: (20)), the first grinding burr when received by the burr holder being height-adjustable, in unison with the burr holder, relative to a rotatable second grinding burr (fig.1: (60)), that is centrally located with respect to the first grinding burr, to adjust a grind size from grinding of coffee beans in a space between the first grinding burr and the second grinding burr upon rotation of the second grinding burr with respect to the first grinding burr (paragraph 0054).
Regarding claim 16, Chen discloses the first grinding burr (fig.1: (20)) being height-adjustable relative to a rotatable second grinding burr (fig.1: (60)), that is centrally located with respect to the first grinding burr, to adjust a grind size from grinding of coffee beans in a space between the first grinding burr and the second grinding burr upon rotation of the second grinding burr with respect to the first grinding burr (paragraph 0054).
Chen does not disclose wherein the burr portion is an integral part of a first grinding burr,
However, the Applicant discloses “the burr portion is an integral part of a first grinding burr” is just an example; and the burr portion is a burr holder for removably receiving a first grinding burr (the Applicant’s specification: paragraphs 0021-0022 and 0042);
So, it appeases having “wherein the burr portion is an integral part of a first grinding burr” is not critical and it just a design choice;
Further, Chen discloses wherein the burr portion (fig.1: (30)) is a burr holder for removably receiving a first grinding burr (fig.1: (20)),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to rearrange the burr portion and the first grinding burr of Chen to be wherein the burr portion is an integral part of a first grinding burr as a matter of obvious engineering choice (MPEP 2144.04: V, B).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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