DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the application and claims filed on March 22, 2024. Claims 21-40 are pending, with claims 21, 28 and 36 in independent claim form.
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 statements (IDS) submitted are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “38” has been used to designate both “particle dispensing aperture” and “discharge aperture” in para.[0061].
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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:
Claim 28 line 8, recited “an attachment feature configured to be coupled”,
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 28 line 8, discloses the limitation “an attachment feature configured to be coupled” has been interpreted under 112(f) because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “feature” coupled with functional language “configured to be coupled” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
A review of the specification shows that there is equivalent structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f): In figure 12, shown “the attachment feature” to be a “connector” and will be interpreted as the equivalent structure of the generic placeholder (feature) to perform the function of configured to be coupled.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
Claims 21-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. CN Publication (108,478,043) hereinafter Liu in view of Guo et al. CN Publication (206,183,046) hereinafter Guo.
Regarding claim 21,
Liu discloses a grinder (fig.1-7), comprising:
a body (7) having an interior (see fig.2);
a hopper (1) coupled to the body (see fig.2);
a grinding assembly (2) disposed within the interior of the body,
wherein the hopper (1) has an opening (see fig.7) for selectively adding a food substance to the grinding assembly,
wherein the grinding assembly (2) includes:
a taper blade (24);
a blade disc (25) positioned about the taper blade (24); and
a scraper plate (27) operably coupled with the taper blade (24);
a support plate (28) disposed adjacent to the scraper plate (27), and wherein the support plate (28) has a discharge opening (see fig.4);
PNG
media_image1.png
527
559
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a motor assembly (22) operably coupled to the taper blade (24) to grind the food substance into charged grounds, and wherein the motor assembly (22) is operably coupled to the scraper plate (27) to move the charged grounds;
a chute (29) disposed within the interior of the body (7), wherein the chute (29) extends between the support plate (28) and a discharge aperture (see fig.4) of the body (7), wherein the chute (29) defines a channel (see fig.4) that couples the discharge opening with the discharge aperture (see fig.4); and
Liu does not disclose an ion generator disposed within the interior of the body, wherein the ion generator includes pins disposed at least partially in the channel and a power source electrically coupled to the pins, and wherein a voltage is provided to the pins to generate a negative ion field within the channel and, consequently, reduce a charge on the charged grounds.
Liu and Guo disclose both art in the same field of endeavor of the claimed invention (i.e. coffee grinder).
Guo, in a similar art, teaches an ion generator (4,41-44, see fig.1-2) disposed within the interior of the body, wherein the ion generator (4,41-44) includes pins (44) disposed at least partially in the channel (2,51) and a power source electrically coupled to the pins (44), and wherein a voltage is provided to the pins (44) to generate a negative ion field within the channel (2,51) and, consequently, reduce a charge on the charged grounds (see abstract, the recitation of static electricity, conventionally inherent an electrical source, voltages, amperes and resistances).
Guo teaches the ion generator to generate positive and negative ions to neutralize the charge carried by the coffee material (Abstract), therefore it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date to manufacture the coffee grinder of Liu with an ion generator as taught by Guo, as it would be beneficiary to Liu to be able to generate positive and negative ions, neutralizing the charge carried by the coffee material and render the grinder more efficient.
Regarding claim 22,
The prior art Liu as modified by Guo discloses all limitation of claim 21,
Liu in view of Guo discloses wherein the pins (44, Guo) taper from a proximal end to a distal end (see fig.1, Guo).
Regarding claim 23,
The prior art Liu as modified by Guo discloses all limitation of claim 21,
Liu in view of Guo discloses wherein the pins (44, Guo) extend into the channel (2,52, Guo) adjacent to the discharge aperture (marked as 5 in fig.1, see fig.3, Guo).
Regarding claim 24,
The prior art Liu as modified by Guo discloses all limitation of claim 21,
Liu further discloses a receptacle support (43-45) selectively coupled to the body (7, see fig.8-11) and including upper flanges (43,45) and lower flanges (43,44), wherein the upper flanges (43,45) define a first receiving level (see fig.10-11) to receive a first porta- filter (6) of a first size (see fig.10-11), and
wherein the lower flanges (43,44) define a second receiving level (see fig.8-9) to receive a second porta-filter (5) of a second size (see fig.8-9), the first size being different than the second size (see fig.8-11).
Regarding claim 25,
The prior art Liu as modified by Guo discloses all limitation of claim 21,
Liu in view of Guo discloses wherein the ion generator (4,41-44, Guo) includes an electrical connector (42,43, Guo) that extends through the chute to the pins (44, see fig.3, Guo).
PNG
media_image2.png
444
535
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 26,
The prior art Liu as modified by Guo discloses all limitation of claim 21,
Liu further discloses wherein the grinding assembly (2) includes: a disc bracket (26) coupled to the blade disc (25); and an adjustment assembly (3) having an adjusting ring (31) coupled to the disc bracket (26), wherein the adjusting ring (31) is configured to rotate and adjust a position of the disc bracket (26) and, consequently, the blade disc (25, see pag. 5 lines 1-27).
Regarding claim 27,
The prior art Liu as modified by Guo discloses all limitation of claim 21,
Liu in view of Guo discloses wherein the ion generator (4,41-44, Guo) includes a plate (see fig.3 of claim 25, Guo) having the pins (44, Guo) extending therefrom, and wherein the plate extends at least partially across the channel (2,51, see fig.3 of claim 25, Guo).
Regarding claim 28,
Liu discloses a grinder appliance (fig.1-7), comprising:
a body (7) having a housing portion (see fig.2);
a grinding assembly (2) positioned within the housing portion (see fig.2), wherein the grinding assembly (2) is configured to grind whole beans into ground beans;
a chute (29) extending between the grinding assembly (2) and a discharge aperture (see fig.4 of claim 21).
Liu does not disclose an ion generator extending through the chute and into a channel defined by the chute, wherein the ion generator includes:
an attachment feature configured to be coupled to at least one of the body and the chute; at least one pin extending from an end of the attachment feature and into the channel; and a power source coupled to the at least one pin to generate an ion field within the channel to reduce a charge on the ground beans traveling through the chute.
Guo, in the similar art, teaches an ion generator (4,41-44) extending through the chute (see fig.3 of claim 25) and into a channel (2,51) defined by the chute,
wherein the ion generator (4,41-44) includes: an attachment feature (41) configured to be coupled to at least one of the body and the chute (see fig.2, all parts of the grinder are coupled/connected); at least one pin (44) extending from an end of the attachment feature (41) and into the channel (2,51); and
a power source coupled to the at least one pin (42-44) to generate an ion field within the channel (2,51) to reduce a charge on the ground beans traveling through the chute (see abstract, the recitation of static electricity, conventionally inherent an electrical source, voltages, amperes and resistances).
Guo teaches the ion generator to generate positive and negative ions to neutralize the charge carried by the coffee material (Abstract), therefore it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date to manufacture the coffee grinder of Liu with an ion generator as taught by Guo, as it would be beneficiary to Liu to be able to generate positive and negative ions, neutralizing the charge carried by the coffee material and render the grinder more efficient.
Regarding claim 29,
The prior art Liu as modified by Guo discloses all limitation of claim 28,
Liu is silent about wherein a width of a receiving end of the chute to be less than a width of a dispensing end of the chute.
Guo, in the similar art, teaches a width of a receiving end (marked as 2) of the chute to be less than a width of a dispensing end (Marked as 51) of the chute (see fig.3 of claim 25).
Guo teaches the different widths dimensions of the chute to prevent the chute to be clogged (see pag.2 lines 38-39), therefore it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date to manufacture the coffee grinder of Liu with different widths dimensions of the chute as taught by Guo, as it would be beneficiary to Liu to be able to prevent the chute to be clogged and render the apparatus more efficient.
Regarding claim 30,
The prior art Liu as modified by Guo discloses all limitation of claim 28,
Liu in view of Guo discloses the at least one pin (43-44, Guo) extends into the channel (2,51, Guo) proximate to the dispensing end (Marked as 51) of the chute (see fig.3 of claim 25, Guo).
Regarding claim 31,
The prior art Liu as modified by Guo discloses all limitation of claim 28,
Liu further discloses a receptacle (5/6) configured to receive the ground beans from the discharge aperture (see fig.4 of claim 21).
Regarding claim 32,
The prior art Liu as modified by Guo discloses all limitation of claim 28,
Liu in view of Guo discloses wherein the at least one pin includes a first pin (42-44, Guo) spaced from a second pin (43-44, Guo).
Regarding claim 33,
The prior art Liu as modified by Guo discloses all limitation of claim 32,
Liu in view of Guo discloses wherein the first pin (42-44, Guo) is horizontally aligned with the second pin (43-44, Guo).
Regarding claim 34,
The prior art Liu as modified by Guo discloses all limitation of claim 28,
Liu in view of Guo discloses wherein the at least one pin (43-44, Guo) with proximal end and a distal end disposed within the channel (2,51, see fig.1, Guo).
Liu in view of Guo clearly illustrates pins to have proximal and distal ends both having widths however the scale of the drawings is not being relied upon for accurate measurements. Rather, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date to have a proximal end of the pins with a width to be greater than a width of a distal end. Accordingly, it has been held that "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 35,
The prior art Liu as modified by Guo discloses all limitation of claim 28,
Liu in view of Guo discloses wherein the at least one pin (43,44, Guo) extends through the rear of the chute (see fig.3 of claim 25, Guo) however neither Liu nor Guo discloses a front of the chute to have a shallower curve than a rear of the chute and since no criticality is recited for a front of the chute to have a shallower curve than a rear of the chute and well known in the mechanical art for chutes to be constructed with different sizes and shapes deemed suitable for specific operation and ensure effectiveness of operation, and that such is not non- obvious, occurs during routine engineering practices and experimentation and does not in itself warrant patentability, therefore it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date to have a front of the chute to have a shallower curve than a rear of the chute to ensure effectiveness of operation.
Accordingly, it has been held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claims 36- 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Con et al. US Publication (2011/0283889) hereinafter Con in view of Guo et al. CN Publication (206,183,046) hereinafter Guo.
Regarding claim 36,
Con discloses a countertop appliance (fig.1), comprising:
a body (10-12) including a housing portion (12) defining a discharge aperture (126, see fig.12) and a dispensing opening (195. See fig. 19);
a hopper (19,150) coupled to the housing portion (12);
a grinder (110) at least partially disposed within the housing portion (element 121 is part of the grinder and is partially out of the housing portion, see fig.1 and 11), wherein the grinder (111,112 of 110) is aligned with the discharge aperture (126) of the housing portion, and
wherein the grinder includes:
a grinding assembly (111,112);
a chute (115,127) extending between the grinding assembly (111,112) and the discharge aperture (126, aperture inside element 127, see fig.12c); and
a brew system (15) disposed at least partially in the housing portion (12) and aligned with the dispensing opening (195).
Con is silent about an ion generator extending partially into a channel defined by the chute and configured to generate an ion field within the channel, wherein charged grounds are discharged from the grinding assembly and non-charged particles are discharged from the grinder;
Con and Guo disclose both art in the same field of endeavor of the claimed invention (i.e. coffee grinder).
Guo, in a similar art, teaches an ion generator (4,41-44) extending partially into a channel (2,51) defined by the chute (see fig.3 of claim 25) and configured to generate an ion field within the channel (see abstract and fig.3), wherein charged grounds (grounds before the ionization pass, elements 42-44) are discharged from the grinding assembly (31,32) and non-charged particles (grounds after the ionization pass, elements 42-44) are discharged from the grinder;
Guo teaches the ion generator to generate positive and negative ions to neutralize the charge carried by the coffee material (Abstract), therefore it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date to manufacture the coffee grinder of Con with an ion generator as taught by Guo, as it would be beneficiary to Liu to be able to generate positive and negative ions, neutralizing the charge carried by the coffee material and render the grinder more efficient.
Regarding claim 37,
The prior art Con as modified by Guo discloses all limitation of claim 36,
Con further discloses wherein the grinding assembly (111,112) includes a blade disc (111) and a taper blade (112), and wherein a space (conventional with coffee grinder with conical shape, recited to be grinding gap) between the blade disc (111) and the taper blade (112) is adjustable to determine a size (grind size adjustable mechanism, see para. [0053]) of the charged grounds.
Regarding claim 38,
The prior art Con as modified by Guo discloses all limitation of claim 36,
Con in view of Guo discloses wherein the ion generator (4,41-44, Guo) includes a plate (see fig.3 of claim 25, Guo) with pins (44, Guo) extending from the plate, and wherein the plate extends at least partially across the channel (2,51, see fig.3 of claim 25, Guo).
Regarding claim 39,
The prior art Con as modified by Guo discloses all limitation of claim 36,
Con in view of Guo discloses wherein the ion generator (4,41-44, Guo) includes pins (44, Guo) that extend horizontally within the channel (51) defined by the chute (see fig.3 of claim 25, Guo) however neither Con nor Guo disclose the pins to be extended in a vertical orientation angle.
Reference Guo clearly illustrated the pins to be extended in a horizontal angle (see fig.3) and since no criticality is recited for the pins to be extended in a vertical angle and well known in the mechanical art for pins to be extended in different angles (horizontal or vertical) which is deemed suitable for specific operation and ensure effectiveness of operation, and that such is not non- obvious, occurs during routine engineering practices and experimentation and does not in itself warrant patentability, therefore it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date to have the pins to be extended in a vertical angle to ensure effectiveness of operation.
Accordingly, it has been held that a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding claim 40,
The prior art Con as modified by Guo discloses all limitation of claim 36,
Con in view of Guo discloses wherein the chute (115, Con) defines a first curve (see fig.11, Con) in a first direction (vertical, Con) and a second curve (see fig.12a, Con) in a second direction (vertical, Con), and wherein the ion generator (4,41-44, Guo) extends through the chute (see fig.3 of claim 25, Guo) between the first curve and the second curve (see fig.11 and 12a, Con).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Smith O. BAPTHELUS whose telephone number is (571)272-5976. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00-6:00.
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 L. 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.
March 10, 2026
/BSO/Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725