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 because:
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. The ends of the broken line should be designated by Arabic or Roman numerals corresponding to the view number of the sectional view, and should have arrows to indicate the direction of sight”. Figs 2, 8, 10, and 12-14 are sectional views where the plane upon which these views were taken was not indicated. The planes should be indicated.
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 4-5 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4 includes the phrase “the third plate positions” which should be corrected to --the third plate is positioned--.
Claim 5 includes the word “comprises” which should be corrected to – comprise --.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 5, 11, 12, and 19 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 5 includes the phrase “at their respective circumferences” in line 2 of the claim which create indefiniteness because it is unclear if these new circumferences are the same circumferences as in claim 1.
Claim 11 includes the limitations “the first wall” and “the second wall” in line 1-2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. These elements are introduced in claim 10 and for the purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as though it were dependent upon claim 10.
Claim 12 includes the phrase “wherein during the step of inserting the central axis pillar into the bearing” in line 1-2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 includes the phrase “a gap indicating no contact” in line 2 of the claim. This claim is indefinite because it is not clear what it means for a gap to indicate.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 7 is to the “Bearing of Claim 1”, even though claim 1 is to a grinding device containing a bearing. As phrased, claim 7 appears to not incorporate all the limitations of claim 1 which it is dependent upon. For the purposes of examination, claim 7 will be interpreted as though it read –The grinding device of claim 1, ...--. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Interpretation
Examiner has interpreted “active contact” of claims 1, 9, and 15 to mean a contact capable of preventing the first plate and second plate from spinning.
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 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Czerninski (US2019/0090693).
Re Claim 1, Czerninski discloses a grinding device, comprising:
a first plate (material processing unit 102, Fig. 5) comprising a plurality of first pegs (second material processing blade set 110, “the second material processing blade set ( 110 ) (not shown in FIGS. 1; 2 ; and 3 ) extended within the at least one material processing unit ( 102 )” [0023]);
a second plate (material processing unit lid 106) comprising a plurality of second pegs (“first material processing blade set protruded at inner surface of the material processing unit lid ( 106 )” [0023]);
a first wall extending (see Fig. 4, illustrated below) from an outer circumference of the first plate (see Fig. 4, illustrated below);
a second wall (see Fig. 4, illustrated below) extending from an outer circumference of the second plate (see Fig. 4, illustrated below);
a bearing positioned at the first plate (see Fig. 4, illustrated below);
a central axis pillar positioned at the second plate (see Fig. 4, illustrated below); and
wherein the central axis pillar connects to the bearing (see Fig. 4, illustrated below) such that said first wall and second wall do not have an active contact while the plurality of first pegs and the plurality of second pegs operatively connect to grind herb materials (“The spinning unit ( 104 ) further comprises of a second material processing blade set ( 110 ) extended between the first material processing blade set protruded at inner surface of the material processing unit lid ( 106 ) and the strainer size adjust shield ( 108 ), adapted to spin in opposite direction of first material processing blade set protruded at inner surface of the material processing unit lid ( 106 ) for processing the plurality of edible material contained therein;” [0010]. As the plurality of pegs are able to spin in opposite direction to each other, the walls to which they are integrally connected can not have active contact with each other).
Re Claim 2, Czerninski discloses the grinding device of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the central axis pillar comprises a head (binding post screw 124) and a shaft extending from the head (rest of the binding post 122).
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) 1-3, 8, 9, 15, 17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mroue (2016/0106262), in view of Czerninski (US2019/0090693) and Teng (CN1738567)
Re Claim 1, Mroue discloses a grinding device (portable herb grinder 10), comprising:
a first plate (disc 35) comprising a plurality of first pegs (top grinding knives 36);
a second plate (middle section 40) comprising a plurality of second pegs (bottom grinding knives 42);
a first wall (wall defining bottom opening of top section 100) extending from an outer circumference of the first plate (see Fig. 4b, illustrated below);
a second wall (wall defining top opening of bottom section 200) extending from an outer circumference of the second plate (see Fig. 4b, illustrated below);
PNG
media_image1.png
893
647
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 4b of Mroue
Mroue does not disclose a bearing positioned at the first plate; a central axis pillar positioned at the second plate; and wherein the central axis pillar connects to the bearing such that said first wall and second wall do not have an active contact while the plurality of first pegs and the plurality of second pegs operatively connect to grind herb materials
Czerninski teaches a bearing (see Fig. 4, illustrated below) positioned (Fig. 4) at the first plate (material processing unit 102); a central axis pillar (binding post 122) positioned (Fig. 4) at the second plate (material processing unit lid 106) and connecting the central axis pillar to the bearing (see Fig. 4, illustrated above).
PNG
media_image2.png
684
737
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 4 of Czerninski
Mroue differs from the claimed invention by having the output shaft of the motor directly connected to the disc so that the disc is rotated relative to the undriven middle section instead of having the shaft go through the disc and connected to the middle section so that the middle section is rotated relative to the undriven disc. Czerninski teaches a bearing and binding post system in order to spin the plates with plurality of pegs in opposite directions (“using at least two material processing blade set adapted to spin in opposite direction.” [0005]). 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 Mroue by substituting the output shaft of the motor of Mroue with the binding post of Czerninski, having that post go through the disc of Mroue and connect to the middle section of Mroue, and connecting the binding post of Czerninski to the disc of Mroue via a bearing in order to spin the plates in an opposite direction as taught by Czerninski. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the results of this substitution as predictable because both systems drive one plate relative to the other.
Teng teaches a grinder having a gap between two parts that rotate relative to each other in order to allow free relative rotational movement (“The tool according to claim 11, wherein, when said male and female presser unit are aligned with each other to form the interlocking position between the grinding teeth of the respective male and female squeezing unit there is a sufficient gap allowing free relative rotational movement between the male and female presser unit” Pg. 15, Second Paragraph)
Mroue, in view of Czerninski, teaches a grinder that differs from the claimed grinding device in that the first wall and second wall are dimensioned to be removable to each other (“The top opening of the middle section 200 is dimensioned so as to be removably inserted into the bottom opening of the top section 100 .” [0032]). It is unclear if this means that these sections are in contact. 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 Mroue in view of Czerninski by having a gap between the top opening of the middle section and the bottom opening of the top section as taught by Teng so these parts can experience free rotation as taught by Teng. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the results of this substitution as predictable.
Examiner notes that Mroue, in view of Czerninski and Teng, will have the central axis pillar connects to the bearing such that said first wall and second wall do not have an active contact while the plurality of first pegs and the plurality of second pegs operatively connect to grind herb materials
Re Claim 2, Mroue, in view of Czerninski and Teng, discloses the grinding device of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), and further discloses that the central axis pillar (Czerninski, binding post 122) comprises a head (end of binding post that connects to motor 21 of Mroue) and a shaft extending from the head (binding post except for the part that connects to the motor of Mroue).
Re Claim 3, Mroue, in view of Czerninski and Teng, discloses the grinding device of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), and Mroue further discloses a motor (motor 21), wherein the motor operatively connects to the first plate (motor connects to the bearing which connects to the first plate) and rotates one of the first plate and the second plate for grinding the herb material (motor connects to the binding post which connects to and rotates the second plate).
Re Claim 8, Mroue, in view of Czerninski and Teng, discloses the grinding device of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), and Mroue further discloses that said first pegs and said second pegs are arranged in a concentric circular configuration on said first plate and said second plate, respectively (Figs. 2, 3, and 4).
Re Claim 9, Mroue discloses a method for grinding leaves with a grinding device, the method comprising:
providing a first plate (disc 35) comprising a plurality of first pegs (top grinding knives 36);
providing a second plate (middle section 40) comprising a plurality of second pegs (bottom grinding knives 42);
inserting the leaves on one of said first or second plates (“In use, a user may place herb or vegetative material to be ground between the top grinding knives 36 and the bottom grinding knives 42 of the middle section 40 , and then releasably connect the top section 20 to the middle section 40 .” [0039]);
turning one of said first or second plates to grind the leaves (“ This motor will be activated under battery power to rotate the disc 35 . The herb or vegetative material to be ground will be ground, commutated or shredded between the sharp surfaces of the top grinding knives 36 and bottom grinding knives 42 as they rotate with respect to each other.” [0039]);
Mroue does not disclose providing a bearing positioned at said first plate; providing a central axis pillar positioned at said second plate; or connecting the central axis pillar to the bearing, such that the first plate and the second plate do not have an active contact while the plurality of pegs operatively connect for grinding of herb material.
Czerninski teaches providing a bearing (see Fig. 4, illustrated above) positioned (Fig. 4) at the first plate (material processing unit 102); providing a central axis pillar (binding post 122) positioned (Fig. 4) at the second plate (material processing unit lid 106) and connecting the central axis pillar to the bearing (see Fig. 4, illustrated above).
Mroue differs from the claimed invention by having the output shaft of the motor directly connected to the disc so that the disc is rotated relative to the undriven middle section instead of having the shaft go through the disc and connected to the middle section so that the middle section is rotated relative to the undriven disc. Czerninski teaches a bearing and binding post system in order to spin the plates with plurality of pegs in opposite directions (“using at least two material processing blade set adapted to spin in opposite direction.” [0005]). 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 Mroue by substituting the output shaft of the motor of Mroue with the binding post of Czerninski, having that post go through the disc of Mroue and connect to the middle section of Mroue, and connecting the binding post of Czerninski to the disc of Mroue via a bearing in order to spin the plates in an opposite direction as taught by Czerninski. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the results of this substitution as predictable because both systems drive one plate relative to the other.
Teng teaches a grinder having a gap between two parts that rotate relative to each other in order to allow free relative rotational movement (“The tool according to claim 11, wherein, when said male and female presser unit are aligned with each other to form the interlocking position between the grinding teeth of the respective male and female squeezing unit there is a sufficient gap allowing free relative rotational movement between the male and female presser unit” Pg. 15, Second Paragraph)
Mroue, in view of Czerninski, teaches a grinder that differs from the claimed grinding device in that the first wall and second wall are dimensioned to be removable to each other (“The top opening of the middle section 200 is dimensioned so as to be removably inserted into the bottom opening of the top section 100 .” [0032]). It is unclear if this means that these sections are in contact. 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 Mroue in view of Czerninski by having a gap between the top opening of the middle section and the bottom opening of the top section as taught by Teng so these parts can experience free rotation as taught by Teng. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the results of this substitution as predictable.
Examiner notes that Mroue, in view of Czerninski and Teng, will have the central axis pillar connected to the bearing such that said first wall and second wall do not have an active contact while the plurality of first pegs and the plurality of second pegs operatively connect to grind herb materials
Re Claim 15, Mroue discloses a grinding device (portable herb grinder 10), comprising:
a first plate (disc 35) comprising a plurality of first pegs (top grinding knives 36);
a second plate (middle section 40) comprising a plurality of second pegs (bottom grinding knives 42);
a motor (motor 21) operatively connecting at said first plate (motor 21 is connected to output shaft 31 which is connected to disc 35, “Disc 35 is fixedly connected to the output shaft 31 through any suitable means” [0031]);
wherein said motor causes said first plate to rotate for grinding said herb material with said first pegs and said second pegs (“This motor will be activated under battery power to rotate the disc 35 . The herb or vegetative material to be ground will be ground, commutated or shredded between the sharp surfaces of the top grinding knives 36 and bottom grinding knives 42 as they rotate with respect to each other.” [0039])
Mroue does not disclose a bearing positioned at said first plate; a central axis pillar positioned on said second plate, wherein said central axis pillar inserts in said bearing such that said first plate and said second plate do not have an active contact while said plurality of first pegs and said plurality of second pegs operatively connect for grinding an herb material.
Czerninski teaches a bearing (see Fig. 4, illustrated below) positioned (Fig. 4) at the first plate (material processing unit 102); a central axis pillar (binding post 122) positioned (Fig. 4) at the second plate (material processing unit lid 106) and connecting the central axis pillar to the bearing (see Fig. 4, illustrated above).
Mroue differs from the claimed invention by having the output shaft of the motor directly connected to the disc so that the disc is rotated relative to the undriven middle section instead of having the shaft go through the disc and connected to the middle section so that the middle section is rotated relative to the undriven disc. Czerninski teaches a bearing and binding post system in order to spin the plates with plurality of pegs in opposite directions (“using at least two material processing blade set adapted to spin in opposite direction.” [0005]). 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 Mroue by substituting the output shaft of the motor of Mroue with the binding post of Czerninski, having that post go through the disc of Mroue and connect to the middle section of Mroue, and connecting the binding post of Czerninski to the disc of Mroue via a bearing in order to spin the plates in an opposite direction as taught by Czerninski. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the results of this substitution as predictable because both systems drive one plate relative to the other.
Teng teaches a grinder having a gap between two parts that rotate relative to each other in order to allow free relative rotational movement (“The tool according to claim 11, wherein, when said male and female presser unit are aligned with each other to form the interlocking position between the grinding teeth of the respective male and female squeezing unit there is a sufficient gap allowing free relative rotational movement between the male and female presser unit” Pg. 15, Second Paragraph)
Mroue, in view of Czerninski, teaches a grinder that differs from the claimed grinding device in that the first wall and second wall are dimensioned to be removable to each other (“The top opening of the middle section 200 is dimensioned so as to be removably inserted into the bottom opening of the top section 100 .” [0032]). It is unclear if this means that these sections are in contact. 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 Mroue in view of Czerninski by having a gap between the top opening of the middle section and the bottom opening of the top section as taught by Teng so these parts can experience free rotation as taught by Teng. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the results of this substitution as predictable.
Examiner notes that Mroue, in view of Czerninski and Teng, will have the central axis pillar connects to the bearing such that said first wall and second wall do not have an active contact while the plurality of first pegs and the plurality of second pegs operatively connect to grind herb materials
Re Claim 17, Mroue, in view of Czerninski and Teng, discloses the grinding device of claim 15 (see rejection of claim 15 above), and Mroue further discloses that said first pegs and said second pegs are arranged in a concentric circular configuration on said first plate and said second plate, respectively (Figs 2, 3, and 4).
Re Claim 20, Mroue, in view of Czerninski and Teng, discloses the grinding device of claim 15 (see rejection of claim 15 above), and further discloses that the central axis pillar (Czerninski, binding post 122) comprises a head (end of binding post that connects to motor 21 of Mroue) and a shaft extending from the head (binding post except for the part that connects to the motor of Mroue) and wherein said shaft connects to said bearing (Czerninski, Fig. 5).
Claim(s) 4 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mroue, in view of Czerninski as applied to claim 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Yang (US 2005/0077403).
Re Claim 4, Mroue, in view of Czerninski and Teng, discloses the bearing of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), but fails to disclose a third plate, wherein the third plate positions over the second plate and is connected to the central axis pillar, and wherein the third plate controls a distance between the first plate and the second plate such that a grind level is controlled for grinding the herb material of different sizes;
Yang teaches a third plate (adjusting knob 69), wherein the third plate positions over the second plate (grinding member 66) and is connected (Fig. 3) to the central axis pillar (spindle 67), and wherein the third plate controls a distance between the first plate and the second plate such that a grind level is controlled for grinding the herb material of different sizes (“Furthermore, an adjustment of the adjusting knob 69 to press the spindle 67 up or down is capable of moving the grinding member 66 up or down accordingly to adjust the gap between the grinding member 66 and the grinding seat 65, thereby allowing the coffee beans to be ground into powder of different sizes, very convenient in operation” [0031]);
Mroue, in view of Czerninski and Teng, contains a base grinder upon which the claimed invention improves by having a mechanism, near the second plate and connected to the central axis, capable of controlling a distance between the first plate and second plate such that a grind level is controlled. Yang teaches a comparable grinder that has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have applied the improvements as taught by Yang to the base grinder as disclosed in Mroue, in view of Czerninski and Teng, in order to change the distance between the first and second plates and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the results of the combination to be predictable .
Re Claim 14, Mroue, in view of Czerninski and Teng, discloses the method of claim 9 (see rejection of claim 9 above), but fails to disclose controlling a distance between said first plate and said second plate such that a grind level is controlled for grinding said herb material of different sizes.
Yang teaches controlling a distance between said first plate and said second plate such that a grind level is controlled for grinding said herb material of different sizes (“Furthermore, an adjustment of the adjusting knob 69 to press the spindle 67 up or down is capable of moving the grinding member 66 up or down accordingly to adjust the gap between the grinding member 66 and the grinding seat 65, thereby allowing the coffee beans to be ground into powder of different sizes, very convenient in operation” [0031]) and a subsystem to achieve this function comprising teaches a third plate (adjusting knob 69), wherein the third plate positions over the second plate (grinding member 66) and is connected (Fig. 3) to the central axis pillar (spindle 67).
Mroue, in view of Czerninski and Teng, contains a base grinding method upon which the claimed invention improves by having a mechanism, near the second plate and connected to the central axis, capable of controlling a distance between the first plate and second plate such that a grind level is controlled. Yang teaches a comparable grinder that has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have applied the improvements as taught by Yang to the base grinding method as disclosed in Mroue, in view of Czerninski and Teng, in order to change the distance between the first and second plates and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the results of the combination to be predictable.
Claim(s) 5, 10, 11, 18, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mroue, in view of Czerninski and Teng, as applied to claims 1, 9, and 15 above, and further in view of Haskins (US2018/0271327)
Re Claim 5, Mroue, in view of Czerninski and Teng, discloses the grinding device of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), and Mroue further discloses that wherein said second plate (middle section 40) comprises ridges (Fig. 1) at their respective circumferences providing a grip for rotating said first plate or said second plate.
Mroue, in view of Czerninski and Teng, do not disclose that said first plate comprises ridges at the respective circumference providing a grip for rotating said first plate or said second plate.
Furthermore, the first plate (disc 35) is not capable of providing a grip for rotating because it is separated from the user’s hand by the first wall (wall defining bottom opening of top section 100).
Haskins teaches a first plate (top disc 308) comprising a plurality of pegs (teeth 306) and a first wall (annular wall 302) wherein the first plate comprising ridges (ridges 310) at the respective circumference providing a grip for rotating said first plate (“The outer edge 308e may include ridges or knurling 310 to improve a user's grip” [0032]).
Mroue, in view of Czerninski and Teng, disclose a grinder upon which the claimed invention improves upon by making the top plate have ridges so it can be rotated by hand. Haskins contains a comparable grinder which has a top plate with ridges so it can be twisted (“In use, the top portion 300 is twisted/rotated clockwise and counter-clockwise on the bottom portion, as shown in FIG. 1. The knurled edge 308e of the top portion 300 can provide added grip for the user. The teeth 306, 307 on the top portion 300 and the teeth 212 on the bottom portion 200, which are located to not overlap with each other, grind any materials 400 in the bowl.” [0038]) in order to grind material. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the ridges of Haskins to the wall defining the bottom opening of the top section of Mroue in order allow the user to grip and rotate this wall. Examiner notes that this modification would not allow the user to rotate the first plate because the wall defining the bottom opening of the top section and the disc of Mroue, while being next to one another, are not connected to one another. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the disc of Mroue and wall defining the bottom opening of the top section of Mroue integral, so that by moving the wall defining the bottom opening of the top section one also moves the disc, because (1) Haskins teach teaches a comparable grinder where the plate and wall are integral. One of ordinary skill in the art could have applied this improvement to the base device of Mroue, in view of Czerninski and Teng, to achieve results that could have been predicted by one of ordinary skill in the art and (2) it has been held that merely making features taught in the prior art integral is a is an obvious matter of design and/or engineering choice (MPEP § 2144.04 subsection V.B).
Re Claim 10, Mroue, in view of Czerninski and Teng, discloses the method of claim 9 (see rejection of claim 9 above), and Mroue discloses providing a second wall (wall defining top opening of bottom section 200) said at a circumference (see Fig. 4b, illustrated above) of the second plate (middle section 40) , wherein the second wall extends from a surface of the second plate (see Fig. 4b, illustrated above).
Mroue further fails to disclose providing a first wall (wall defining bottom opening of top section 100) at a circumference (see Fig. 4b, illustrated above) of the first plate (disc 35), the first wall extending from a surface of the first plate because the first wall and first plate as identified in Mroue are distinct that are not integral to each other.
Haskins teaches a first plate (top disc 308) comprising a plurality of pegs (teeth 306) and a first wall (annular wall 302) wherein the first plate comprising ridges (ridges 310) at the respective circumference providing a grip for rotating said first plate (“The outer edge 308e may include ridges or knurling 310 to improve a user's grip” [0032]) so it can be twisted (“In use, the top portion 300 is twisted/rotated clockwise and counter-clockwise on the bottom portion, as shown in FIG. 1. The knurled edge 308e of the top portion 300 can provide added grip for the user. The teeth 306, 307 on the top portion 300 and the teeth 212 on the bottom portion 200, which are located to not overlap with each other, grind any materials 400 in the bowl.” [0038]) in order to grind material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the disc of Mroue and wall defining the bottom opening of the top section of Mroue integral as taught by Haskins, so that by moving the wall defining the bottom opening of the top section one also moves the disc as taught by Haskins. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to modify Mroue, in view of Czerninski and Teng in the claimed manner as it has been held that merely making features taught in the prior art integral is a is an obvious matter of design and/or engineering choice (MPEP § 2144.04 subsection V.B).
Re Claim 11, Mroue, in view of Czerninski, Teng, and Haskins, discloses the method of claim 10 (see rejection of claim 10 above), and further discloses that the second wall contains ridges (Mroue, Fig. 1), but fails to disclose that an outer portion of the first wall contains ridges.
Haskins teaches a first plate (top disc 308) comprising a plurality of pegs (teeth 306) and a first wall (annular wall 302) wherein the first plate comprising ridges (ridges 310) at the respective circumference providing a grip for rotating said first plate (“The outer edge 308e may include ridges or knurling 310 to improve a user's grip” [0032]).
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 outer portion of the first wall of Mroue, in view of Czerninski, Teng, and Haskins, to comprise ridges as further taught by Haskins in order to improve a user’s grip. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized a reasonable expectation of success.
Re Claim 18, Mroue, in view of Czerninski and Teng, discloses the grinding device of claim 15 (see rejection of claim 15 above), and Mroue discloses that wherein said second plate (middle section 40) comprises a second wall (wall defining top opening of bottom section 200) at its circumference (see Fig. 4b, illustrated above), and wherein said second wall extends from a surface of said second plate (see Fig. 4b, illustrated above).
Mroue further fails to disclose that said first plate (disc 35) comprises a first wall (wall defining bottom opening of top section 100) at its circumference (see Fig. 4b, illustrated above), wherein said first wall extends from a surface of said first plate, because the first wall and first plate as identified in Mroue are distinct that are not integral to each other.
Haskins teaches a first plate (top disc 308) comprising a plurality of pegs (teeth 306) and a first wall (annular wall 302) wherein the first plate comprising ridges (ridges 310) at the respective circumference providing a grip for rotating said first plate (“The outer edge 308e may include ridges or knurling 310 to improve a user's grip” [0032]) so it can be twisted (“In use, the top portion 300 is twisted/rotated clockwise and counter-clockwise on the bottom portion, as shown in FIG. 1. The knurled edge 308e of the top portion 300 can provide added grip for the user. The teeth 306, 307 on the top portion 300 and the teeth 212 on the bottom portion 200, which are located to not overlap with each other, grind any materials 400 in the bowl.” [0038]) in order to grind material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the disc of Mroue and wall defining the bottom opening of the top section of Mroue integral as taught by Haskins, so that by moving the wall defining the bottom opening of the top section one also moves the disc as taught by Haskins. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to modify Mroue, in view of Czerninski and Teng in the claimed manner as it has been held that merely making features taught in the prior art integral is a is an obvious matter of design and/or engineering choice (MPEP § 2144.04 subsection V.B).
Re Claim 19, Mroue, in view of Czerninski and Teng, discloses the grinding device of claim 18 (see rejection of claim 18 above), and wherein said first wall and said second wall present a gap indicating no contact between them when said second plate sits on top of said first plate (The tool according to claim 11, wherein, when said male and female presser unit are aligned with each other to form the interlocking position between the grinding teeth of the respective male and female squeezing unit there is a sufficient gap allowing free relative rotational movement between the male and female presser unit” Pg. 15, Second Paragraph).
Claim(s) 6, 13, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mroue, in view of Czerninski and Teng, as applied to claim 1, 9, and 15 above, and further in view of Wang (US20180168398).
Re Claim 6, Mroue, in view of Czerninski and Teng, discloses the bearing of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), and Mroue further discloses that some of the plurality of first pegs and said second pegs has a base, a tapered section extending from said base, and a tip at a distal end of said tapered section (see Figs. 2 and 3, illustrated below).
PNG
media_image3.png
887
654
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
628
1269
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figs 2 and 3 of Mroue, illustrated
Mroue fails to disclose that each of the plurality of first pegs and second pegs has a base, a tapered section extending from said base, and a tip at a distal end of said tapered section.
Wang teaches that each of the plurality of first pegs (first protrusions 4) and second pegs (second protrusions 6) has a base, a tapered section extending from said base, and a tip at a distal end of said tapered section (“Multiple first protrusions 4 extend from the inner bottom of the reception area 31 and each first protrusion 4 is a cone-shaped protrusion whose tip end faces upward.” [0025], second protrusions 6 shown to be conical in Fig. 3). In order to ground food (“Food is put between the base and the mounting member, and ground during relative movements between the first and second protrusions by rotating the mounting member relative to the base, and the ground food drops through the holes and stored in the can” [0011])
Mroue, in view of Czerninski and Teng, discloses a grinder which differs from the claimed grinder in that only some of the pegs of Mroue, in view of Czerninski and Teng, have a base, a tapered section extending from said base, and a tip at a distal end of said tapered section instead of all the pegs having that shape. Wang teaches that all the pegs have a conical shape in order to ground food. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have substituted the pegs of Mroue, in view of Czerninski and Teng, for the conical protrusions of Wang and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the results of this substitution to be predictable as both the protrusions of Wang and the pegs of Mroue, in view of Czerninski and Teng, serve the function of grinding.
Re Claim 13, Mroue, in view of Czerninski and Teng, discloses the method of claim 9 (see rejection of claim 9 above), and Mroue further discloses that some of the plurality of shaped pegs have a base resting against the first plate, a tapered section extending from the base, and a tip at a distal end of the tapered section (see Figs. 2 and 3, illustrated above). Mroue fails to disclose that all of the plurality of shaped pegs have a base resting against the first plate, a tapered section extending from the base, and a tip at a distal end of the tapered section.
Wang teaches that each of the plurality of first pegs (first protrusions 4) and second pegs (second protrusions 6) has a base, a tapered section extending from said base, and a tip at a distal end of said tapered section (“Multiple first protrusions 4 extend from the inner bottom of the reception area 31 and each first protrusion 4 is a cone-shaped protrusion whose tip end faces upward.” [0025], second protrusions 6 shown to be conical in Fig. 3). In order to ground food (“Food is put between the base and the mounting member, and ground during relative movements between the first and second protrusions by rotating the mounting member relative to the base, and the ground food drops through the holes and stored in the can” [0011])
Mroue, in view of Czerninski and Teng, discloses a method which differs from the claimed method in that only some of the pegs of Mroue, in view of Czerninski and Teng, have a base, a tapered section extending from said base, and a tip at a distal end of said tapered section instead of all the pegs having that shape. Wang teaches that all the pegs have a conical shape in order to ground food. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have substituted the pegs of Mroue, in view of Czerninski and Teng, for the conical protrusions of Wang and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the results of this substitution to be predictable as both the protrusions of Wang and the pegs of Mroue, in view of Czerninski and Teng, serve the function of grinding.
Re Claim 16, Mroue, in view of Czerninski and Teng, discloses the grinding device of claim 15 (see rejection of claim 15 above), and Mroue further discloses that some of the plurality of first pegs and said second pegs has a base, a tapered section extending from said base, and a tip at a distal end of said tapered section (see Figs. 2 and 3, illustrated above). Mroue fails to disclose that each of the plurality of first pegs and second pegs has a base, a tapered section extending from said base, and a tip at a distal end of said tapered section.
Wang teaches that each of the plurality of first pegs (first protrusions 4) and second pegs (second protrusions 6) has a base, a tapered section extending from said base, and a tip at a distal end of said tapered section (“Multiple first protrusions 4 extend from the inner bottom of the reception area 31 and each first protrusion 4 is a cone-shaped protrusion whose tip end faces upward.” [0025], second protrusions 6 shown to be conical in Fig. 3). In order to ground food (“Food is put between the base and the mounting member, and ground during relative movements between the first and second protrusions by rotating the mounting member relative to the base, and the ground food drops through the holes and stored in the can” [0011])
Mroue, in view of Czerninski and Teng, discloses a grinder which differs from the claimed grinder in that only some of the pegs of Mroue, in view of Czerninski and Teng, have a base, a tapered section extending from said base, and a tip at a distal end of said tapered section instead of all the pegs having that shape. Wang teaches that all the pegs have a conical shape in order to ground food. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have substituted the pegs of Mroue, in view of Czerninski and Teng, for the conical protrusions of Wang and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the results of this substitution to be predictable as both the protrusions of Wang and the pegs of Mroue, in view of Czerninski and Teng, serve the function of grinding.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mroue, in view of Czerninski as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Silvis et al. (US2018/0049592), hereinafter referred to as Silvis.
Re Claim 7, Mroue, in view of Czerninski and Teng, discloses the bearing of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), but fails to disclose that the bearing has a chamfered hexagonal entry point for the central axis pillar.
Silvis teaches that the bearing has a chamfered entry point (base end of the bearing 26d) for the central axis pillar (drive shaft 28) for smooth engagement between the central axis pillar and the bearing (“Similarly to the base end 26c of the bushing 26b, the base end of the bearing 26d may also be chamfered, for smooth, facilitated engagement with the drive shaft 28 for rotation of the drive shaft 28.” [0030])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mroue, in view of Czerninski and Teng such that the bearing had a chamfered entry point as taught by Silvis to have a smooth facilitate engagement between the bearing and the pillar. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized a reasonable expectation of success.
Mroue, in view of Czerninski, Teng, and Silvis, disclose that the bearing has a chamfered entry point for the central axis pillar, but fails to disclose that the entry hole is hexagonal. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the invention in the claimed manner as merely changing the shape of features recited in the prior art has been held to be design/engineering choices (MPEP § 2144.04 subsection IV.B).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mroue, in view of Czerninski and Teng, as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Grumbacher et al. (US2014/0353412) hereinafter referred to as Grumbacher.
Re Claim 12, Mroue, in view of Czerninski and Teng, disclose the method of claim 9 (see rejection of claim 9 above), but fails to disclose that during the step of inserting the central axis pillar into the bearing, a gap between the plurality of first pegs and the second plate and the plurality of second pegs and the first plate ranges between 0.5 and 1.0 millimeters.
Grumbacher teaches a gap between the plurality of first pegs and the second plate and the plurality of second pegs and the first plate ranges between 0.1 and 5 millimeters (“The depth of the knives provides that there is about 0.1 mm to about 5 mm in space between the end of the knives and the plates to which the upper and lower knives 10 and 21 are attached, so that the knives can rotate without contacting the underlying connective plate of the opposing knives” [0047]), in order to keep the pegs from contacting the opposing plate while rotating.
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 the method of Mroue, in view of Czerninski and Teng, to keep a gap between each set of pegs and the opposing plate as taught by Grumbacher in order to prevent the pegs from contacting the opposing plate. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized a reasonable expectation of success.
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
/Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights