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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "actuator member 44" and "follower element 39" have both been used to designate the same cylindrical body.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "propulsor element 38" and "eccentric element 37" have both been used to designate the same eccentric body.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “43” has been used to designate both the shaft and the cam in Fig. 3.
The drawings are objected to because:
Figs. 2-5, 11-12, and 17-18 are sectional views where it is unclear from what section of what view the sectional view is taken. 37 CFR 1.84 (h)(3) says “The plane upon which a sectional view is taken should be indicated on the view from which the section is cut by a broken line.” Examiner notes that Figs. 2-5, 11-12, and 17 do not have a view from which the section is cut and Fig. 18 does not correspond to the sectional view line on Fig. 17.
Fig. 3 has two views. 37 CFR 1.84 (u)(1) says “Partial views intended to form one complete view, on one or several sheets, must be identified by the same number followed by a capital letter”. The views of Fig. 3 should be labelled -Fig. 3a- and -Fig. 3b- in the manner of Fig. 16.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
37 CFR 1.75 says “Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation”. Claim 1 and 14 contains a plurality of elements that should each be separated by a line indentation.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "said cam" in line 9 of the claim. The “said cam” appears to be the same element as the “an eccentric element” as in lines 4-5 of the claim. 37 CFR 1.71(a) says claims must be in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms” (emphasis added). Applicant must use consistent terminology in the claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
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. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“drive means” in claim 1. Fig. 1 shows the drive means (reference character 12) to be a motor.
“oscillation means” in claim 1. According to the specification, the oscillation means comprises a propulsor as well as an actuator member (Pg. 5, Line 33 – Pg. 6, Line 2)
“Support means” in claim 1. Fig. 1 shows the support means to comprise elastic elements 31, screws 32 and shims 33.
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:
“grinding device”. According to the specification, “the grinding device 11 comprises a containing body 15” (Pg. 9, Line 31).
“conveyor member”. According to the specification, the conveyor member comprises a pipe (Pg. 1, Line 33).
“actuator member”. According to the specification, the actuator member is a rod (Pg. 12, Line 10).
“follower element”. According to the specification, the follower element is a rod (Pg. 12, Line 10)
“striker element”. Fig. 16 shows the striker element as a region of the rotating body.
“elastic element”. According to the specification, the elastic element has “a certain degree of elasticity and has, centrally, a passage hole” (Pg. 11, Lines 25-26)
“Clamping element”. The specification does not define clamping element.
“variation member”. According to the specification, the variation member is “an inverter” (Pg. 17, Line 32)
“damping element”. According to the specification, the damping element is a “sheet” (Pg. 7, Line 11)
“vibrating unit”. Fig. 1 shows vibrating unit to be the vibrating motor 51.
“elastic retention element”. The specification does not contain corresponding structure.
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 § 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 1-15 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.
Claim 1 recites the “said cam comprises a rotating body” in line 9 of the claim. It is unclear if the cam and the rotating body are two separate objects. For the purposes of examination, it is interpreted that the cam is the body and the limitation requires the cam to be capable of rotating.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the motion" in line 5 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim
Claim 1 recites the limitation "said cam" in line 9 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitations “ring shaped packing” in lines 2-3 of the claim and “defines said striker element” in line 4 of the claim. These limitations are indefinite because it is unclear if the ring-shaped packing and the striker element are two separate elements or if they are the same element and “ring-shaped packaging” is a further limitation of striker element.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “an elastic retention element disposed in cooperation between said propulsor member and said actuator” in lines 2-3 of the claim. This limitation is indefinite because it is unclear if the elastic retention element has to be physically between the propulsor and actuator. For the purpose of examination, the claim will be interpreted as though it said -- an elastic retention element disposed in cooperation with said propulsor member and said actuator --.
The term “normally” in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “normally” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the movement" in line 4 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the alternating frequency movement" in line 5 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "said alternating frequency movement" in line 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim
The term “substantially” in claim 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Likewise rejected, this issue repeats in claim 11, line 3, claim 12, line 3, and claim 13, line 2 and 3
Claim 12 uses the limitation “upper wall... has a ... parabolic development”. It is unclear what structural limitation is meant by the word development
Claim 13 says that a first and second portion are “developing” along a first and second segment. It is unclear what structural limitation is meant by saying that a part is developing.
Claim 15 includes the limitation “or keep it vibrating even at the end of said grinding” in lines 2-3. This phrase is indefinite because it is unclear when the “end of said grinding” is.
Claim limitation “clamping element” and “elastic retention element” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The original claims appear to indicate that the clamping elements are the screws 32. However, this indication in the original claims were abandoned and nothing in the specification as presently presented links the screws and the clamping elements. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ford et al. (US 5,865,383), hereinafter referred to as Ford.
Re Claim 1, Ford discloses an apparatus for grinding seeds comprising a grinding device (grinder 20) provided with drive means (motor 60), a conveyor member (discharge assembly 30 including container 34) able to convey powder of said seeds toward the outside, and oscillation means (cam assembly 64 and actuator rod 66) associated with said conveyor member (container 34) and comprising a propulsor member (cam assembly 64) provided with an eccentric element (eccentric part of cam assembly 64 relative to central axis 82) keyed to a shaft (drive shaft 58) of said drive means (motor 60) and able to transform the motion generated by said drive means (motor 60) into a reciprocating motion, and an actuator member (actuator rod 66) provided with a cam follower element (end of actuator rod 66 that interacts with cam assembly 64, see Fig. 3) disposed between said propulsor member (cam assembly 64) and said conveyor member (container 34) and able to transmit said reciprocating motion to said conveyor member (“The actuator rod 66 translates the eccentric movement of the cam assembly 64 to displace or move the shaker arm 50 positioned thereagainst” Col. 5 Lines 27-29 and Fig. 2 shows the shaker arm 50 interacting with container 34), wherein said cam (cam assembly 64) comprises a rotating body (Fig. 3) provided with a central hole (Fig. 3 shows central hole which is occupied by drive shaft 58), with at least one protruding portion (see Fig. 3, illustrated below) in correspondence with which a radius of said cam (cam assembly 64) has a maximum value (Rmax) and one recessed portion (see Fig. 3, illustrated below) disposed downstream of said protruding portion (see Fig. 3, illustrated below) with respect to a direction (D) of rotation, during use, of said cam (cam assembly 64), wherein in correspondence with said recessed portion (see Fig. 3, illustrated below)) there is disposed a striker element (edge of cam assembly 64 within the recessed portion) made of elastic material (all materials have an amount of elasticity, so all materials could be an elastic material).
PNG
media_image1.png
365
1129
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3 of Ford, illustrated
Re Claim 8, Ford disclose the apparatus as in claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 by Ford above), and Ford further discloses a damping element (deflector 120) positioned inside (Fig. 2) said conveyor member (discharge assembly 30) and disposed transversely to an exit trajectory of said powdered substance (lower wall, see Fig. 7, illustrated below, is transverse to an exit trajectory of said powdered substance).
Re Claim 9, Ford disclose the apparatus as in claim 8 (see rejection of claim 8 by Ford above), wherein said damping element (65) is made in the form of a sheet and comprises a first (upper wall, see Fig. 7, illustrated below) and a second part (lower wall, see Fig. 7, illustrated below) inclined with respect to each other (Fig. 7).
Re Claim 10, Ford, in view of Bertram and Engl, disclose the apparatus as in claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 by Ford above), and Ford further discloses that in correspondence with an exit end of said conveyor member (discharge assembly 34) there is disposed a diffuser (see Fig. 7 of Ford, illustrated below) configured to convey the powdered substance in such a way that it exits by gravity in a substantially vertical direction (the diffuser as identified in Fig. 7 of Ford restricts the powdered substance from falling in a horizontal direction to the side).
Re Claim 11, Ford disclose the apparatus as in claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 by Ford above), and Ford further discloses that said conveyor member (discharge assembly 30) has an arched shape, substantially corresponding to an exit trajectory of the powdered substance from said grinding device (Fig. 2).
Re Claim 12, Ford disclose the apparatus as in claim 1 (see rejection of claim 11 above), and Ford further discloses that said conveyor member (discharge assembly 30) comprises an upper wall (upper part of deflector 120) which, in section, has a substantially parabolic development (see Fig. 7 of Ford, illustrated below), and a substantially rectilinear lower wall (lower part of deflector 120).
PNG
media_image2.png
916
913
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 7 of Ford, illustrated
Re Claim 13, Ford disclose the apparatus as in claim 1 (see rejection of claim 11 above), and Ford further discloses that said conveyor member (discharge assembly 30) has a substantially tubular shape (Fig. 2) and is provided with a first portion (see Fig. 2, illustrated below), developing along a first segment oriented substantially parallel to and aligned with the prevailing exit direction of the powdered substance (Fig. 2) from said grinding device (grinder 20) and a second portion (see Fig. 2, illustrated below), consequent to said first portion (see Fig. 2, illustrated below), developing along a second segment (Fig. 2) angled with respect to said first segment (X1) and oriented toward an exit zone of the powdered substance.
PNG
media_image3.png
779
556
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 of Ford, illustrated
Re Claim 14, Ford discloses a method to grind seeds comprising
grinding said seeds (“While the grinder of the present invention is broadly used for grinding a material to produce a ground substance and the systems of the grinder may be used in a variety of different applications, the present description will generally refer to material as whole bean coffee or coffee beans and the ground substance as ground coffee.”) in a grinding device (grinder 20) as in claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above) in order to obtain a powdered substance and
conveying said powder toward the outside (“the substance settling assembly 36 operates to automatically move or shake ground coffee dispensed through the discharge assembly 30 into the container 34.”) with a conveyor member (container 34),
wherein the method provides to make said conveyor member (container 34) vibrate at least during said grinding by means of said oscillation means (cam assembly 64 and actuator rod 66) associated therewith (“the substance settling assembly 36 operates to automatically move or shake ground coffee dispensed through the discharge assembly 30 into the container 34” Col. 5, Line 38-40).
Claim(s) 1, 5-6, 10, and 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ditting et al. (US 2,852,202), hereinafter referred to as Ditting.
Re Claim 1, Ditting discloses an apparatus for grinding seeds (“coffee grinder” Col. 1, Line 56) comprising a grinding device (housing 6a) provided with drive means (driving shaft. disc 2a, which is shown in Fig. 1 to be connected to hub 4 and rotating grinding disc 2, I described as “driven”. Fig.1, illustrated below, shows that the disc 2a is driven by a shaft.), a conveyor member (tube 7) able to convey powder of said seeds toward the outside (“The blades 5 scrape the ground coffee from the wall of housing- 6a and force it through the opening 6b, which 2 is arranged at an acute angle thereto, into tube discharge 7.” Col. 1, Lines 71 – Col. 2, Line 2), and oscillation means (hub 4, cam 2b, and boss 15) associated with said conveyor member (oscillation means and conveyor means are associated by being part of the same grinder) and comprising a propulsor member (hub 4) provided with an eccentric element (cam 2b and bottom half of hub 4, see Fig. 1, illustrated below) keyed to a shaft (Fig. 1 shows the cam 3b attached to the hub which is attached to a shaft) of said drive means (driving shaft) and able to transform the motion generated by said drive means (motor 60) into a reciprocating motion (“the hub 4 of the rotating holding disc 2a may, by way cf example, be provided with a cam 2b sliding under the transmission means or boss 15 which in turn bears against the tube 7 with its front end via a rubber member 16.” Col. 2, Line 26-31 and fig. 1 showing an embodiment of the disclosure with a cam and a boss), and an actuator member (boss 15) provided with a cam follower element (end of boss 15 that interacts with cam 2b, see Fig. 1) disposed between (Fig. 1) said propulsor member (hub 4) and said conveyor member (tube 7) and able to transmit said reciprocating motion to said conveyor member (“the hub 4 of the rotating holding disc 2a may, by way cf example, be provided with a cam 2b sliding under the transmission means or boss 15 which in turn bears against the tube 7 with its front end via a rubber member 16.” Col. 2, Line 26-31), wherein said cam (cam 2b and bottom half of hub 4, see Fig. 1, illustrated below) comprises a rotating body (“the hub 4 of the rotating holding disc 2a may, by way cf example, be provided with a cam 2b sliding under the transmission means or boss 15 which in turn bears against the tube 7 with its front end via a rubber member 16.” Col. 2, Line 26-31) provided with a central hole (Fig. 1 shows central hole which is occupied by drive shaft 58), with at least one protruding portion (cam 2b) in correspondence with which a radius of said cam (cam assembly 64) has a maximum value (Rmax) (see Fig. 1, illustrated below) and one recessed portion (side of cam 2b and bottom half of hub 4 180° from cam 2b) disposed downstream of said protruding portion (see Fig. 1) with respect to a direction (D) of rotation, during use, of said cam (as the cam is circular, the entirety of the cam is disposed downstream of the protruding portion during use), wherein in correspondence with said recessed portion (Fig. 1) there is disposed a striker element (edge of bottom-half of hub 4 within the recessed portion) made of elastic material (all materials have an amount of elasticity, so all materials could be an elastic material).
Re Claim 5, Ditting discloses the apparatus as in claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 by Ditting above), and Ford further discloses that said conveyor member (tube 7) is mounted on said grinding device (housing 6a) by means of support means (rubber pads 8, “The tube 7 is resiliently attached or supported by rubber pads, or the like. Two rubber pads 8 connect the tube 7 at one end thereof to the housing 6a while one pad 8a is supported by the housing extension 9 and connects the tube with the latter” Col. 2, Lines 6-11) able both to define a physical and stable connection (Fig. 1 shows a physical and stable connection) and also to allow the movement with at least one degree of freedom (“”The resilient mounting of the tube 7 by means of the rubber pads 8 and 8a enables the tube 7 to vibrate.” Col. 2, Lines 24-25) of said conveyor member (tube 7) with respect to said grinding device (housing 6a).
Re Claim 6, Ditting discloses the apparatus as in claim 5 (see rejection of claim 5 by Ditting above), wherein said support means comprise clamping elements (extensions of tube 7, see Fig. 2, illustrated below) able to attach a first portion of said conveyor member (see Fig. 1, illustrated below) to said grinding device (Fig. 2), and at least one elastic element (rubber pads 8 and 8a) able to cushion a second portion of said conveyor member (exit of tube 7) with respect to said grinding device, during the alternating frequency movement provided by said oscillation means (when the tube is vibrated by the oscillation means, the rubber pads dampen the vibrations of the entire tube, including the exit where the coffee grounds leave the tube and enter the bag).
PNG
media_image4.png
624
647
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Ditting, first illustration
Re Claim 10, Ditting discloses the apparatus as in claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 by Ditting above), and Ditting discloses that in correspondence with an exit end of said conveyor member (tube 7) there is disposed a diffuser (see Fig. 1 of Ditting, illustrated above) configured to convey the powdered substance in such a way that it exits by gravity in a substantially vertical direction (Fig. 1 of Ditting shows that the ground powder would fall in a substantially vertical direction into the bag as shown).
Re Claim 14, Ditting discloses a method to grind seeds comprising
grinding said seeds (“It is an object of the present invention to provide means in a coffee grinder which permit to convey automatically ground coffee to a container subsequently to the grinding operation”) in a grinding device (housing 6a) as in claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above) in order to obtain a powdered substance and
conveying said powder toward the outside (“The tube 7 is arranged on the housing 6a in such a manner that the slot 6b is in alinement with the bore 7a of the tube 7 so that the latter operates as a cyclone through which the ground coffee ejected circulates along the inner wall of the tube and drops into the bag 10”) with a conveyor member (tube 7),
wherein the method provides to make said conveyor member (tube 7) vibrate at least during said grinding (“During the grinding process the tube 7 is therefore vibrated so as to prevent the ground coffee from adhering to the inner wall surfaces of the bag and to facilitate the filling of the bag attached thereto”) by means of said oscillation means (cam assembly 64 and actuator rod 66) associated therewith (“the hub 4 of the rotating holding disc 2a may, by way of example, be provided with a cam 2b sliding under the transmission means or boss 15 which in turn bears against the tube 7 with its front end via a rubber member 16.”).
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) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ditting
Re Claim 11, Ditting, disclose the apparatus as in claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 by Ditting, above), and Ditting further discloses that said conveyor member (tube 7) has an shape substantially corresponding to an exit trajectory of the powdered substance from said grinding device (in Ditting, the ground powder exits the grinder by following the tube from the slot to the bag. Therefore, the shape of the tube substantially corresponds to an exit trajectory of the ground powder).
Ditting fails to disclose that the conveyor member has an arched shape. The shape of the tube in Ditting is of two rectilinear portions (Fig. 1), but an arch definitionally requires a curve. it would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ditting in the claimed manner by having the , since it has been held that merely changing the shape of features taught in the prior art is an obvious matter of design and/or engineering choice (MPEP § 2144.04 subsection IV.B)
PNG
media_image5.png
627
645
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Ditting, second illustration
Re Claim 12, Ditting disclose the apparatus as in claim 11 (see rejection of claim 11 above), and Ditting further discloses that said conveyor member (tube 7 comprises an upper wall (upper wall of tube 7) which, in section, has a substantially parabolic development (Fig. 1 of Ditting, illustrated above, shows two rectilinear portions having a substantially parabolic development), and a substantially rectilinear lower wall (lower wall of tube 7).
Re Claim 13, Ditting disclose the apparatus as in claim 1 (see rejection of claim 11 above), and Diting further discloses that said conveyor member (tube 7) has a substantially tubular shape (tube 7) and is provided with a first portion (see Fig. 1, illustrated above), developing along a first segment oriented substantially parallel to and aligned with the prevailing exit direction of the powdered substance (Fig. 2) from said grinding device (housing 6a) and a second portion (see Fig. 1, illustrated above), consequent to said first portion (see Fig. 1, illustrated above), developing along a second segment (see Fig. 1, illustrated above) angled with respect to said first segment and oriented toward an exit zone of the powdered substance (see Fig. 1, illustrated above).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ditting as applied to claim 1 above in view of Bertram et al. (US 4,812,691)
Re Claim 2, Ditting, disclose the apparatus as in claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 by Ditting above), but fails to disclose that said rotating body comprises a perimeter groove in which a ring-shaped packing is disposed in such a way that in correspondence with said at least one recessed portion it is protruding with respect to said rotating body and defines said striker element, while in correspondence with said at least one protruding portion and at least part of the connection segments it is disposed flush with or reentrant with respect to said rotating body.
Bertram teaches that that said rotating body (follower wheel 13) comprises a perimeter groove (see Fig. 4 of Bertram, illustrated below) in which a ring-shaped packing (elastic friction ring 43) is disposed in order to mechanically relieve the system (“When the friction between the surface 34 of the friction ring 43 on the follower wheel 13 and the cam 7 is high enough the follower wheel 13 stalls the rotor 2a. This means that the direction of rotation of the single-phase synchronous motor is reversed. The elastic construction of the friction ring, which merely represents a transmission aid but not a transmission element for the load, ensures that blocking impulses are suppressed and the system is mechanically relieved.” Col. 6, Lines 30-39).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rotating body of Ditting, previously mapped to the cam and bottom half of the hub of Ditting, so that the circumferential surface of the rotating body is provided with the elastic friction ring of Bertram in order to mechanically relieve the system as taught by Bertram. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized a reasonable expectation of success.
PNG
media_image6.png
511
919
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Fig. 4 of Bertram, illustrated
Examiner notes that the combination of Ditting and Bertram would have a ring packing element disposed in such a way that in correspondence with said at least one recessed portion it is protruding with respect to said rotating body and defines said striker element, while in correspondence with said at least one protruding portion and at least part of the connection segments it is disposed flush with or reentrant with respect to said rotating body (the elastic friction ring of Bertram is simultaneously flush and protruding in relation with the rotating body in correspondence with every portion of the rotating body)
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ditting as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhang (CN 111167552).
Re Claim 3, Ditting disclose the apparatus as in claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 Ditting above), but fails to disclose that said actuator member comprises a ball element disposed between a perimeter surface of the cam and said cam follower element.
Zhang teaches that the actuator member comprises a ball element (ball 11) disposed between a perimeter surface (Fig. 4) of the cam (drive cam 9) and said cam follower element (curved rod 10).
Ditting disclose an actuator member which differs from the claimed actuator member by not having a ball between the cam and cam follower. Zhang teaches an actuator member with a ball between the cam and cam follower to transmit force from the cam to the cam follower (“the driving cam 9 drives the ball 11 move with it, the ball 11 then drives the crank rod 10 move with it” Pg. 11, Lines 7-8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the cam-cam follower arrangement of Ford, in view of Bertram and Engl for the cam-ball-cam follower arrangement as taught by Zhang and one of ordinary skill in the art would have predicted that the new arrangement would transfer force from the cam to the cam follower.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ditting, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Li (CN108451394)
Re Claim 4, Ditting discloses the apparatus as in claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 by Ford, in view of Bertram and Engl, above), but fails to disclose that said oscillation means comprise an elastic retention element disposed in cooperation between said propulsor member and said actuator member, and able to exert an elastic pressure on said actuator member so as to keep it normally in contact with said propulsor member.
Li teaches that said oscillation means (cam 6, stop block 7, spring 8, push rod 9) comprise an elastic retention element (spring 8) disposed in cooperation between (Fig. 1) said propulsor member (cam 6) and said actuator member (stop block 7), and able to exert an elastic pressure on said actuator member (stop block 7) so as to keep it normally in contact (“When the cam 6 moves to the convex position, it pushes the push rod 9 downward, thereby driving the grinding hammer 11 downward. As the push rod 9 moves downward, the stop block 7 compresses the spring 8, giving the spring 8 elasticity. When the cam 6 moves to the concave position, the push rod 9 pushes the push rod 9 downward. The lever 9 moves upward under the force of the spring 8, thereby driving the grinding hammer 11 to move upward, and thus realizing the up-and-down reciprocating motion of the grinding hammer 11 to grind the coffee beans” [0026]) with said propulsor member (cam 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ditting to include a spring as taught by Li in order to keep the boss in contact with the rotating body and thereby realize a reciprocating motion as taught by Li (“When the cam 6 moves to the concave position, the push rod 9 pushes the push rod 9 downward. The lever 9 moves upward under the force of the spring 8, thereby driving the grinding hammer 11 to move upward, and thus realizing the up-and-down reciprocating motion of the grinding hammer 11 to grind the coffee beans” [0026]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ford, in view of Bertram and Engl, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fuhrmann et al. (EP2524636), hereinafter referred to as Fuhrmamn.
Re Claim 7, Ditting disclose the apparatus as in claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 by Ditting above), but fails to disclose that said oscillation means include a vibrating unit mounted on said conveyor member able to generate said alternating frequency movement in order to transmit simultaneously and/or selectively with respect to said propulsor member said alternating frequency movement to said conveyor member.
Fuhrmann teaches oscillation means include a vibrating unit (impulse generator 11) mounted on (“Powder shaft 4 therefore forms an angle of 30° with the horizontal. An impulse generator 11 in the form of a vibrator is attached to its outside;” [0032]) said conveyor member (powder shaft 4) able to generate said alternating frequency movement in order to transmit simultaneously (“Additionally, a pulse generator can be arranged on the powder chute, with which one or more mechanical pulses can be transmitted to the powder chute, i.e. one or more shocks or vibrations can be generated at the powder chute. In this way, powder residue adhering to the inside of the powder chute can be loosened, thus supporting the sliding movement of the powder into the brewing unit. The impulse generator can be designed, for example, as a vibrator or a knocker.” [0028]) and/or selectively with respect to said propulsor member said alternating frequency movement to said conveyor member.
Fuhrmann teaches mounting a vibrating unit on the conveyor member in order to prevent ground powder from depositing on the conveyor. 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 Ford, in view of Bertram and Engl, by adding the vibrating unit as taught by Fuhrman in order to prevent ground powder from depositing on the conveyor. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized a reasonable expectation of success. Examiner notes that that vibrating unit of Fuhrman can generate an alternating frequency movement to the conveyor member at any time and can thereby operate simultaneously and/or selectively with respect to the propulsor member.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ditting as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of McNeill et al. (US 5,950,941), hereinafter referred to as McNeill.
Re Claim 8, Ditting discloses the apparatus as in claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 by Ditting above), but fails to disclose a damping element positioned inside said conveyor member and disposed transversely to an exit trajectory of said powdered substance.
McNeill teaches positioning a damping element (chaff spring 74) inside said conveyor member (chute 68) and disposed transversely to an exit trajectory of said powdered substance (see trajectory of ground coffee 66 in Fig. 16) in order to dispel electrostatic charge (“An additional chaff spring 74 may be employed, as shown in FIG. 16, further down the chute 68. The chaff spring 74 is a L-shaped member with a leg 74a welded or otherwise secured to the front pivoting flap 70 of chute 68. A second leg 74b extends out from flap 70 across the path of the falling ground coffee 66. The surface of the second leg 74b may have the configuration shown in any of the shapes previously described, but preferably has a shape described in reference to FIGS. 3-6. The ground coffee 66, thus, impacts against the outwardly extending leg 74b and is delayed momentarily as it collects on the surface of leg 74b. The weight of the collected ground coffee on leg 74b causes the flap 70 to pivot out slightly, dumping the ground coffee. The flap 70 then pivots back to its original position and again collects the ground coffee. This time delay furthers the opportunity for any residual or additional electrostatic charge to be dissipated” Col. 6, Lines 41-53).
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 Ditting by including the damping element of McNeill in order to dispel electrostatic charge as taught by McNeill. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized a reasonable expectation of success.
Re Claim 9, Ditting, in view of McNeill, disclose the apparatus as in claim 8 (see rejection of claim 8 above), and McNeill further teaches that said damping element (chaff spring 74) is made in the form of a sheet (“L-shaped member”) and comprises a first (leg 74a) and a second (leg 74b) part inclined with respect to each other (Fig. 16).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ford as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Ottavi (US2018/0279831).
Re Claim 15, Ford discloses the method as in claim 14 (see rejection of claim 14 above), and Ford further discloses that the method provides to make said conveyor member (container 34) vibrate (the substance settling assembly 36 operates to automatically move or shake ground coffee dispensed through the discharge assembly 30 into the container 34” Col. 5, Line 38-40) and/or keep it vibrating even at the end of said grinding, but fails to disclose by driving variation members operatively associated with drive means (motor 60) of said grinding device (grinder 20) in order to reverse their rotation.
Ottavi teaches driving variation members (inverter 7) operatively associated (Fig. 1 shows the inverter operatively connected with the electric motor) with drive means (motor 4) of said grinding device (grinder 1) in order to reverse their rotation (“It must be considered that the control unit (C) can be set in such manner to control the inverter (7) in order to invert the rotational direction of the electric motor (4).” [0058])
Ottavi teaches using an inverter to reverse the rotational direction of the electric motor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ford by adding an inverter to the motor as taught by Ottavi to reverse the rotational direction of the motor.
Conclusion
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
/BOBBY YEONJIN KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights