FLOUR MILLING DEVICE AND METHOD THEREOF

§103 §112

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 . Election/Restriction Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121: I. Claims 1-9, drawn to a flour milling device, classified in B02C4/02. II. Claims 10-17, drawn to a method for milling grains, classified in B02C4/06. The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because: Inventions II and I are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case, the flour milling device can be used to practice another and materially different process, for example, one that does not require milling grains. Additionally, the process as claimed can be practiced by another apparatus, for example, one without the cleaning mechanism. Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply: (A) Separate classification thereof; (B) A separate status in the art when they are classifiable together; and (C) A different field of search. Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention. The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention. Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention. During a telephone conversation with Attorney Kendal Sheets on Wednesday, August 28th, 2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of group I, Claims 1-9. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 10-17 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention. Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i). The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined. In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on December 4th, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner. Drawings The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “wherein each of the pair of blowers comprises a set of fans” (Claim 1, Lines 17-18) must be shown or the features canceled from the claim. No new matter should be entered. 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. In addition to Replacement Sheets containing the corrected drawing figure(s), applicant is required to submit a marked-up copy of each Replacement Sheet including annotations indicating the changes made to the previous version. The marked-up copy must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheets” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings. See 37 CFR 1.121(d)(1). Failure to timely submit the proposed drawing and marked-up copy will result in the abandonment of the application. Specification Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The title of the invention should be placed at the top of the first page of the specification. See 37 CFR 1.72(a) and MPEP § 606. Page 39, Line 10: “[076]” should be --[0076]-- Appropriate correction is required. Claim Objections Claims 1 and 3 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 (Lines 5-6 and Line 12): “are horizontally aligned with each other” should read --horizontally aligned with each other-- Claim 3 (Lines 1-2): “wherein the communication system comprising” should read -- wherein the communication system comprises-- or -- the communication system comprising-- 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. 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 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 is: “communication module” in claim 3 (Line 9). Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is 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 limitation 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 to avoid it 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 recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The applicant is reminded that claim limitations consisting of functional language and/or intended use language are given little, if any, patentable weight as the apparatus must merely be capable of functioning, or being used, as claimed. See MPEP § 2111.04 stating that claim scope may not be limited by claim language, such as “wherein” clauses, that do not limit a claim to a particular structure, and § 2114 stating that the manner of operating a device does not differentiate device claims from the prior art. Further, the applicant is reminded that the patentability of apparatus claims must depend upon structural limitations, not mere statements of functions (see Galland-Henning Manufacturing Company et al. v. Dempster Brothers, Inc., 165 USPQ 688 (E.D. Tenn. 1970)). The applicant is reminded that claim limitations consisting of functional language and/or intended use language are given little, if any, patentable weight as the apparatus must merely be capable of functioning, or being used, as claimed. See MPEP § 2111.04 stating that claim scope may not be limited by claim language, such as “wherein” clauses, that do not limit a claim to a particular structure, and § 2114 stating that the manner of operating a device does not differentiate device claims from the prior art. Further, the applicant is reminded that the patentability of apparatus claims must depend upon structural limitations, not mere statements of functions (see Galland-Henning Manufacturing Company et al. v. Dempster Brothers, Inc., 165 USPQ 688 (E.D. Tenn. 1970)). 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 6-8 are 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 6 recites the limitation “wherein speed of each of the pair of anodize aluminum rollers, and the corundum roller is automatically adjusted based on the grinding option selected corresponding to the grains” in Lines (1-3). It is unclear what structure is being positively claimed thus rendering the claim indefinite. Claim 7 recites the limitation “at a bottom” in Line 2. It is unclear what “at a bottom” is referring to, thus rendering the claim indefinite. Is it at the bottom of the flour milling device, at the bottom of the pair of anodized rollers, at the bottom of the corundum stone and roller? Claim 8, which depend on Claim 7, is equally rejected. 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. 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. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claim 1, 6, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soder (US1936972A), hereinafter “Soder”, in view of Lin (CN108262148A), hereinafter “Lin”, Marcato (EP1597972A2), hereinafter “Marcato”, Grain Mills and Flakers (2022), hereinafter “Grain Mills and Flakers”, Braun et al. (US20140084092A1), hereinafter “Braun”, Jiang et al. (CN216778953U), hereinafter “Jiang”, and Liu (CN107159374A), hereinafter “Liu”. For text citation of Lin, Jiang, and Liu refer to the machine translations provided by the Examiner. Regarding Claim 1, Soder (US1936972A), discloses a flour milling machine (Fig. 2) comprising a hopper (see annotated Fig. 2 of Soder reproduced below), a pair of rollers (Fig. 2, Elements 27 and 28) positioned below the hopper (see annotated Fig. 2 of Soder reproduced below) and are horizontally aligned with each other (Fig. 2), wherein a first roller is stationary (Fig. 2, Element 27; Page 2, Line 29), and a second roller (Fig. 2, Element 28) is configured to move for a first pre-defined distance in a horizontal direction (Page 2, Lines 20-29) to automatically adjust a spacing (Page 2, Lines 20-29, “grinding pressure”) between the first roller and the second roller; a stone (Fig. 2, Element 2) and a roller (Fig 2, Element 1) positioned below the pair of rollers (Fig. 2) and are horizontally aligned with each other (Fig. 2). Soder fails to disclose the hopper comprising a set of Near Infrared (NIRED) sensors; a pair of anodized aluminum rollers, a corundum stone and a corundum roller, wherein the corundum stone is stationary, and the corundum roller is configured to move for a second pre-defined distance in a horizontal direction to automatically adjust a spacing between the corundum stone and the corundum roller; and an inbuilt cleaning mechanism comprising a set of steel brushers and a pair of blowers configured to automatically clean the flour milling device, wherein each of the pair of blowers comprises a set of fans. Nonetheless, Lin teaches the hopper (Fig. 1, Element 5) comprising a set of Near Infrared sensors (¶0017). Soder and Lin are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of food processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to incorporate the teachings of Lin of using a hopper comprising a set of Near Infrared sensors into the flour milling device disclosed by Soder to accurately distinguish between blockage and excessive feeding, saving personnel time in troubleshooting (¶0017). The prior art combination of Soder and Lin fail to teach a pair of anodized aluminum rollers, a corundum stone and a corundum roller, wherein the corundum stone is stationary, and the corundum roller is configured to move for a second pre-defined distance in a horizontal direction to automatically adjust a spacing between the corundum stone and the corundum roller; and an inbuilt cleaning mechanism comprising a set of steel brushers and a pair of blowers configured to automatically clean the flour milling device, wherein each of the pair of blowers comprises a set of fans. Nonetheless, Marcato (EP1597972A2) teaches a pair of anodized aluminum rollers (Fig. 1, Elements 3 and 4; ¶0015). Marcato further teaches the rollers having a surface layer of alumina (¶0018), thus teaching a corundum roller (¶0018). Soder, Lin, and Marcato are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of food processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to substitute the pair of rollers of the flour milling device of Soder and modified by Lin with the pair of anodized aluminum rollers of Marcato and the roller with a corundum roller based on the teachings of Marcato and provide a pair of anodized aluminum rollers and a corundum roller with a surface layer that is extremely hard and wear resistant and a microporous surface that creates microroughness without releasing any metal particles (¶0018) and to ensure that even in the event any particles were released, being alumina, they are not considered harmful in food preparations (¶0020). The prior art combination of Soder, Lin, and Marcato fails to teach a corundum stone, wherein the corundum stone is stationary, and the corundum roller is configured to move for a second pre-defined distance in a horizontal direction to automatically adjust a spacing between the corundum stone and the corundum roller; and an inbuilt cleaning mechanism comprising a set of steel brushers and a pair of blowers configured to automatically clean the flour milling device, wherein each of the pair of blowers comprises a set of fans. Nonetheless, Grain Mills and Flakers (2022, refer to the copy provided by the Examiner) teaches corundum stones (Page 1, ¶0001). Soder, Lin, Marcato, and Grain Mills and Flakers are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of food processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to substitute the stone of the flour milling device disclosed by Soder and modified by Lin and Marcato with a corundum stone based on the teachings of Grain Mills and Flakers to provide the flour milling device with a stone that is extremely hard, durable and relatively insensitive (Page 1, ¶0001). While the prior art combination of Soder, Lin, Marcato, and Grain Mills and Flakers teach wherein the corundum roller is stationary (Soder - Page 2, Lines 103-105) and the corundum stone moves (Soder - Page 2, Lines 103-105) for a second pre-defined distance in a horizontal direction to automatically adjust a spacing between the corundum stone and the corundum roller (Soder - Page 1, Lines 41-58; Soder - Page 2, Lines 103-105), the prior art combination of Soder, Lin, Marcato, and Grain Mills and Flakers fails to teach wherein the corundum stone is stationary, and the corundum roller is configured to move for a second pre-defined distance in a horizontal direction to automatically adjust a spacing between the corundum stone and the corundum roller; and an inbuilt cleaning mechanism comprising a set of steel brushers and a pair of blowers configured to automatically clean the flour milling device, wherein each of the pair of blowers comprises a set of fans. Nonetheless, Braun teaches wherein a roller (Fig. 2, Element 102) is configured to move for a pre-determined distance in a horizontal direction (¶0003; ¶0022; ¶0100) to automatically adjust a spacing (¶0003; ¶0022; ¶0100, “nip”) between the roller and a stationary member (Fig. 2, Element 115). Soder, Lin, Marcato, Grain Mills and Flakers, and Braun are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of material processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to further modify the flour milling device disclosed by Soder and modified by Lin, Marcato, and Grain Mills and Flakers based on the teachings of Braun such that corundum stone is stationary, and the corundum roller is configured to move for a second pre-defined distance in a horizontal direction to automatically adjust a spacing between the corundum stone and the corundum roller since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167. The prior art combination of Soder, Lin, Marcato, Grain Mills and Flakers, and Braun fails to teach an inbuilt cleaning mechanism comprising a set of steel brushers and a pair of blowers configured to automatically clean the flour milling device, wherein each of the pair of blowers comprises a set of fans. Nonetheless, Jiang teaches an inbuilt cleaning mechanism (¶n0006) comprising a set of steel brushes (Fig. 2, Element 3; ¶n0006). Soder, Lin, Marcato, Grain Mills and Flakers, Braun, and Jiang are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of material processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to incorporate the teachings of Jiang of using an inbuilt cleaning mechanism comprising a set of steel brushers into the flour milling device disclosed by Soder and modified by Lin, Marcato, and Grain Mills and Flakers, and Braun to conveniently remove residue of material from the surface of the rollers (¶n0016). The prior art combination of Soder, Lin, Marcato, Grain Mills and Flakers, Braun, and Jiang fails to teach the inbuilt cleaning mechanism comprising a pair of blowers configured to automatically clean the flour milling device, wherein each of the pair of blowers comprises a set of fans. Nonetheless, Liu teaches an in-built cleaning mechanism (¶0071, Lines 7-9) comprising a pair of blowers (¶0071, Lines 7-9; ¶0043, Line 11) configured to automatically clean the milling device (¶0071, Lines 7-9), wherein each of the pair of blowers comprises a fan (¶0043, Line 11). Soder, Lin, Marcato, Grain Mills and Flakers, Braun, Jiang, and Liu are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of material processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to incorporate the teachings of Liu and add a pair of blowers configured to automatically clean the flour milling device, wherein each of the pair of blowers comprises a fan to the inbuilt cleaning mechanism of the flour milling device disclosed by Soder and modified by Lin, Marcato, and Grain Mills and Flakers, Braun, and Jiang to ensure the cleanliness of the machine, giving the flour milling device excellent characteristics of preventing material blockage, thorough grinding effect, and rapid automatic cleaning (¶0027, Lines 7-9). While the prior art combination of Soder, Lin, Marcato, Grain Mills and Flakers, Braun, Jiang, and Liu teaches wherein each of the pair of blowers comprises a fan (Liu - ¶0043, Line 11), the prior art combination of Soder, Lin, Marcato, Grain Mills and Flakers, Braun, Jiang, and Liu fails to teach wherein each of the pair of blowers comprises a set of fans. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify by Lin, Marcato, Grain Mills and Flakers, Braun, Jiang, and Liu such that each of the pair of blowers comprises a set of fans since it has been held that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). The applicant is reminded that claim limitations consisting of functional language and/or intended use language are given little, if any, patentable weight as the apparatus must merely be capable of functioning, or being used, as claimed. See MPEP § 2111.04 stating that claim scope may not be limited by claim language, such as “wherein” clauses, that do not limit a claim to a particular structure, and § 2114 stating that the manner of operating a device does not differentiate device claims from the prior art. Further, the applicant is reminded that the patentability of apparatus claims must depend upon structural limitations, not mere statements of functions (see Galland-Henning Manufacturing Company et al. v. Dempster Brothers, Inc., 165 USPQ 688 (E.D. Tenn. 1970)). Therefore, the limitations “configured for identifying a type of grains fed into the hopper to provide at least one grinding option as a recommendation to a user” (Lines 2-4), “based on a grinding option selected from the at least one grinding option” (Lines 9-10), “based on the grinding option” (Line 15) are interpreted as intended use and since it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations (Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987)) and because the claim doesn’t recite any structural feature that distinguishes the claimed invention from the flour milling device of the prior art combination of Soder, Lin, Marcato, Grain Mills and Flakers, Braun, Jiang, and Liu, the flour milling device of the prior art combination of Soder, Lin, Marcato, Grain Mills and Flakers, Braun, Jiang, and Liu must be considered capable of performing the claimed functions. Additionally, the Examiner notes that the at least one grinding option is not a positively-recited feature of the claimed flour milling device and, thus, is not germane to the patentability of said device. Consequently, the at least one grinding option is not being given patentable weight. PNG media_image1.png 528 367 media_image1.png Greyscale Annotated Fig. 2 of Soder Regarding Claim 6, the prior art combination of Soder, Lin, Marcato, Grain Mills and Flakers, Braun, Jiang, and Liu renders the flour milling device of claim 1 unpatentable as explained above. Regarding Claim 9, the prior art combination of Soder, Lin, Marcato, Grain Mills and Flakers, Braun, Jiang, and Liu renders the flour milling device of claim 1 unpatentable as explained above. The prior art combination of Soder, Lin, Marcato, Grain Mills and Flakers, Braun, Jiang, and Liu further teaches wherein a brush of the set of steel brushes is positioned in contact with a circumference of each of the first anodized aluminum roller (see annotated Fig. 2 of Jiang reproduced below), and the second anodized aluminum roller (see annotated Fig. 2 of Jiang reproduced below), and wherein the pair of blowers is positioned below the hopper (Liu - Fig. 1, Element 19 below Element 5). PNG media_image2.png 323 597 media_image2.png Greyscale Annotated Fig. 2 of Jiang The prior art combination of Soder, Lin, Marcato, Grain Mills and Flakers, Braun, Jiang, and Liu fails to teach wherein a brush of the set of steel brushes is positioned in contact with a circumference of the corundum roller. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate have an additional brush of the set of steel brushes positioned in contact with a circumference of the corundum roller since it has been held that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). The prior art combination of Soder, Lin, Marcato, Grain Mills and Flakers, Braun, Jiang, and Liu fails to teach wherein the pair of blowers is positioned in-line with the first anodized aluminum roller, the second anodized aluminum roller, and the corundum roller. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to positioned the pair of blowers in-line with the first anodized aluminum roller, the second anodized aluminum roller, and the corundum roller since it has been held that the mere rearrangement of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soder in view of Lin, Marcato, Grain Mills and Flakers, Braun, Jiang, and Liu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hwang (KR200171148Y1), hereinafter “Hwang”. For text citation of Hwang refer to the machine translation provided by the Examiner. Regarding Claim 2, the prior art combination of Soder, Lin, Marcato, Grain Mills and Flakers, Braun, Jiang, and Liu renders the flour milling device of claim 1 unpatentable as explained above. The prior art combination of Soder, Lin, Marcato, Grain Mills and Flakers, Braun, Jiang, and Liu fails to teach further comprising a lid present on top of the flour milling device to access the hopper for adding the grains to the hopper. Nonetheless, Hwang teaches a lid (Fig. 2, Element 40) present on top of a milling device (Fig. 2). Soder, Lin, Marcato, Grain Mills and Flakers, Braun, Jiang, Liu and Hwang are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of material processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to incorporate the teachings of Hwang and provide the flour milling device disclosed by Soder and modified by Lin, Marcato, and Grain Mills and Flakers, Braun, Jiang, and Liu with a lid present on top of the flour milling device to access the hopper for adding the grains to the hopper (Page 3, Lines 3-4). Claim 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soder in view of Lin, Marcato, Grain Mills and Flakers, Braun, Jiang, and Liu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jagadevan (US10881122B2), hereinafter “Jagadevan”. Regarding Claim 3, the prior art combination of Soder, Lin, Marcato, Grain Mills and Flakers, Braun, Jiang, and Liu renders the flour milling device of claim 1 unpatentable as explained above. The prior art combination of Soder, Lin, Marcato, Grain Mills and Flakers, Braun, Jiang, and Liu fails to teach further comprising a communication system, wherein the communication system comprising: an interactive display configured to display messages to the user, wherein the messages include the at least one grinding option, a grain volume option, a progress in grains milling process, a notification of completion of the grains milling process, and a notification of completion of cleaning process; a set of buttons for operating the flour milling device, selecting the grinding option, and starting the cleaning process; and a communication module for sending the messages to a user device and receiving commands from the user corresponding to the selected grinding size option, starting the grains milling process, and starting the cleaning process, via the user device. Nonetheless, Jagadevan teaches a communication system (Column 3, Line 65 - Column 4, Line 4, “display”, “controller”, “control buttons”; Column 7, Line 61 - Column 8, Line 10), wherein the communication system comprising: an interactive display (Column 7, Lines 10-16; Fig. 1, Element 16); a set of buttons (Column 4, Lines 24-36; Fig. 1, Element 20) for operating the milling device (Column 4, Lines 24-36), and a communication module (Column 7, Line 61 - Column 8, Line 10). Soder, Lin, Marcato, Grain Mills and Flakers, Braun, Jiang, Liu and Jagadevan are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of material processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to incorporate the teachings of Jagadevan and provide the flour milling device disclosed by Soder and modified by Lin, Marcato, and Grain Mills and Flakers, Braun, Jiang, and Liu with a communication system comprising an interactive display, a set of buttons for operating the flour milling device, and a communication module to allow the user to provide the device with a programmable control with a display interface (Column 7, Lines 10-12) and control buttons (Column 4, Lines 33-36) and allow the user to operate the device (Column 7, Lines 10-12; Column 4, Lines 33-36). The applicant is reminded that claim limitations consisting of functional language and/or intended use language are given little, if any, patentable weight as the apparatus must merely be capable of functioning, or being used, as claimed. See MPEP § 2111.04 stating that claim scope may not be limited by claim language, such as “wherein” clauses, that do not limit a claim to a particular structure, and § 2114 stating that the manner of operating a device does not differentiate device claims from the prior art. Further, the applicant is reminded that the patentability of apparatus claims must depend upon structural limitations, not mere statements of functions (see Galland-Henning Manufacturing Company et al. v. Dempster Brothers, Inc., 165 USPQ 688 (E.D. Tenn. 1970)). Therefore, the limitations “configured to display messages to the user, wherein the messages include the at least one grinding option, a grain volume option, a progress in grains milling process, a notification of completion of the grains milling process, and a notification of completion of cleaning process” (Lines 3-6), “selecting the grinding option, and starting the cleaning process” (Lines 7-8), and “for sending messages to a user device and receiving commands from the user corresponding to the selected grinding size option, starting the grains milling process, and starting the cleaning process, via the user device” (Lines 9-11) are interpreted as intended use and since it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations (Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987)) and because the claim doesn’t recite any structural feature that distinguishes the claimed invention from the flour milling device of the prior art combination of Soder, Lin, Marcato, Grain Mills and Flakers, Braun, Jiang, Liu, and Jagadevan, the flour milling device of the prior art combination of Soder, Lin, Marcato, Grain Mills and Flakers, Braun, Jiang, Liu, and Jagadevan must be considered capable of performing the claimed functions. Additionally, the Examiner notes that the messages are not a positively-recited feature of the claimed flour milling device and, thus, is not germane to the patentability of said device. Consequently, the messages are not being given patentable weight. Regarding Claim 4, the prior art combination of Soder, Lin, Marcato, Grain Mills and Flakers, Braun, Jiang, Liu, and Jagadevan renders the flour milling device of claim 3 unpatentable as explained above. Additionally, the Examiner notes that the at least one grinding option is not a positively-recited feature of the claimed flour milling device and, thus, is not germane to the patentability of said device. Consequently, the at least one grinding option is not being given patentable weight. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soder in view of Lin, Marcato, Grain Mills and Flakers, Braun, Jiang, and Liu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mattes et al. (DE10218424A1), hereinafter “Mattes”. For text citation of Mattes refer to the machine translation provided by the Examiner. Regarding Claim 5, the prior art combination of Soder, Lin, Marcato, Grain Mills and Flakers, Braun, Jiang, and Liu renders the flour milling device of claim 1 unpatentable as explained above. The prior art combination of Soder, Lin, Marcato, Grain Mills and Flakers, Braun, Jiang, and Liu fails to teach further comprising a set of actuators configured to move the second anodize aluminum roller for the first pre-defined distance, and to move the corundum roller for the second pre-defined distance, to adjust the spacing. Nonetheless, Mattes teaches a set of actuators (¶0006, Lines 15-17, “actuators”) configured to move rollers (¶0006, “at least one pair of rollers”, “rollers”) to pre-defined distances (¶0006, “the width of the roller gap can be adjusted via actuators according to the determined deviators)” to adjust the spacing ((¶0006, “the width of the roller gap”). Soder, Lin, Marcato, Grain Mills and Flakers, Braun, Jiang, Liu and Mattes are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of material processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to incorporate the teachings of Mattes and provide the flour milling device disclosed by Soder and modified by Lin, Marcato, and Grain Mills and Flakers, Braun, Jiang, and Liu with a set of actuators configured to move the second anodize aluminum roller for the first pre-defined distance, and to move the corundum roller for the second pre-defined distance, to adjust the spacing to provide the flour milling machine with a set of actuators for controlling an actuating mechanism that intervenes in the grinding process according to the determined deviations (¶0006). Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soder in view of Lin, Marcato, Grain Mills and Flakers, Braun, Jiang, Liu, and Jagadevan as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Grover (US3880367A). Regarding Claim 7, the prior art combination of Soder, Lin, Marcato, Grain Mills and Flakers, Braun, Jiang, and Jagadevan renders the flour milling device of claim 3 unpatentable as explained above. The prior art combination of Soder, Lin, Marcato, Grain Mills and Flakers, Braun, Jiang, and Jagadevan fails to teach a removable collector vessel placed at a bottom for collecting milled grains during the grains milling process. Nonetheless, Grover teaches a removable collector vessel (Fig. 1, Element 25) placed at a bottom (Column 2, Lines 44-46, ‘lower part’) for collecting milled grains (Column 2, Lines 44-51, “ground flour”) during the grains milling process (Column 2, Lines 44-51). Soder, Lin, Marcato, Grain Mills and Flakers, Braun, Jiang, Liu, Jagadevan, and Grover are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of material processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to incorporate the teachings of Grover and provide the flour milling device disclosed by Soder and modified by Lin, Marcato, and Grain Mills and Flakers, Braun, Jiang, Liu, and Jagadevan with a removable collector vessel placed at a bottom for collecting milled grains during the grains milling process that can be readily pulled out for emptying as needed (Column 2, Lines 44-51). Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soder in view of Lin, Marcato, Grain Mills and Flakers, Braun, Jiang, Liu, Jagadevan, and Grover as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Xu (CN113117864A), hereinafter “Xu”. For text citation of Xu refer to the machine translation provided by the Examiner. Regarding Claim 8, the prior art combination of Soder, Lin, Marcato, Grain Mills and Flakers, Braun, Jiang, Jagadevan, and Grover renders the flour milling device of claim 7 unpatentable as explained above. The prior art combination of Soder, Lin, Marcato, Grain Mills and Flakers, Braun, Jiang, Jagadevan, and Grover fails to teach wherein the bottom further comprises: a motor to operate the flour milling device; and a set of shock absorbent bushes to stabilize movement of the flour milling device. Nonetheless, Jagadevan further teaches wherein the bottom (Fig. 3, lower part of the device) further comprises a motor (Fig. 3, Element 23). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to incorporate these new teachings of Jagadevan and provide the bottom of the flour milling device disclosed by Soder and modified by Lin, Marcato, and Grain Mills and Flakers, Braun, Jiang, Liu, Jagadevan, and Grover with a motor to operate the flour milling device and drive the rotation of the rollers (Column 5, Lines 50-51). After these modifications, the prior art combination of Soder, Lin, Marcato, Grain Mills and Flakers, Braun, Jiang, Jagadevan, and Grover still fails to teach a set of shock absorbent bushes to stabilize movement of the flour milling device. Nonetheless, Shen teaches the bottom (Fig. 2, lower part of the device) comprising a set of shock absorbent bushes (Fig. 2, Element A in both sides; Fig. 4). Soder, Lin, Marcato, Grain Mills and Flakers, Braun, Jiang, Liu, Jagadevan, Grover, and Xu are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of material processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to incorporate the teachings of Xu and provide the flour milling device disclosed by Soder and modified by Lin, Marcato, and Grain Mills and Flakers, Braun, Jiang, Liu, Jagadevan, and Grover with a set of shock absorbent bushes to effectively buffer the vibrations generated by the device, reduce the adverse effects of strong vibrations, and eliminate safety hazards caused by equipment loosening due to vibrations (¶n0013). The applicant is reminded that claim limitations consisting of functional language and/or intended use language are given little, if any, patentable weight as the apparatus must merely be capable of functioning, or being used, as claimed. See MPEP § 2111.04 stating that claim scope may not be limited by claim language, such as “wherein” clauses, that do not limit a claim to a particular structure, and § 2114 stating that the manner of operating a device does not differentiate device claims from the prior art. Further, the applicant is reminded that the patentability of apparatus claims must depend upon structural limitations, not mere statements of functions (see Galland-Henning Manufacturing Company et al. v. Dempster Brothers, Inc., 165 USPQ 688 (E.D. Tenn. 1970)). Therefore, the limitation “to stabilize movement of the flour milling device” (Line 3) is interpreted as intended use and since it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations (Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987)) and because the claim doesn’t recite any structural feature that distinguishes the claimed invention from the flour milling device of the prior art combination of Soder, Lin, Marcato, Grain Mills and Flakers, Braun, Jiang, Liu, Jagadevan, Grover, and Xu, the flour milling device of the prior art combination of Soder, Lin, Marcato, Grain Mills and Flakers, Braun, Jiang, Liu, Jagadevan, Grover, and Xu must be considered capable of performing the claimed functions. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US2986348A, DE19819614A1, DE102012000022A1, KR200447237Y1, WO2019223930A1, WO8903247A1 & WO9633808A1 - Grain milling machine US2821345A - Automatic operating control for pairs of rollers US20200191694A1 & US11684930B1- Infrared sensors Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALONDRA MICHELLE ORTIZ-ORTIZ whose telephone number is (571)272-9539. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7-5PM ET. 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. /A.M.O./ Examiner, Art Unit 3725 /Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725