Prosecution Insights
Last updated: September 17, 2026
Application No. 35/527,056

Part of coffee or kitchen grinders, non-electric household

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Aug 01, 2025
Priority
Feb 18, 2025 — EU 015092960-0001
Examiner
ACHEN ZIMMERMAN, CHRISTINE M
Art Unit
2951
Tech Center
2900
Assignee
Bernd Braune
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
97%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
7m
Est. Remaining
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 97% — above average
97%
Career Allowance Rate
28 granted / 29 resolved
+36.6% vs TC avg
Minimal +4% lift
Without
With
+4.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
1y 8m
Avg Prosecution
5 currently pending
Career history
32
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
3.0%
-37.0% vs TC avg
§102
9.1%
-30.9% vs TC avg
§112
81.8%
+41.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 29 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 . Foreign Priority Acknowledgment is made of Applicant's claim for foreign priority based on European Union Intellectual Property Office Application No. EM 015092960-0001, filed on 2/18/2025. Applicant has filed a certified copy of the European application as required by 35 USC § 119(b). Title Objection The title of a design must designate the name of the article in which the design is embodied or applied to. The title of the design identifies the article in which the design is embodied by the name generally known and used by the public and may contribute to defining the scope of the claim. See MPEP § 2920.04(a). The title is objected to because it does not reference the claimed design by the name generally known and used by the public. For clarity, the examiner recommends amending the title throughout the application, original oath or declaration excepted. The examiner recommends the following: --Part of Non-Electric Coffee or Kitchen Grinder— Claim Rejection - 35 USC § 112 The claim is rejected under 35 USC 112(a) & (b), as the claimed invention is not described in such full, clear, concise and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to make and use the same, and fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or joint inventor regards as the invention. The claim is indefinite and non-enabling for the following reasons: The reproductions do not provide a clear understanding of the exact appearance and three-dimensional configuration of the claimed design. The following portions are unclear: The dark circular rim located in the middle of the outer edge and center opening on the bottom view of the claimed design depicted in Reproduction 1.3 is considered not fully disclosed. The view provided is inadequate to cover the scope asserted and is not sufficient for a complete disclosure. The view does not provide a clear understanding of the exact depth of the circular rim, or the circular features. See visual below for reference: PNG media_image1.png 885 864 media_image1.png Greyscale To overcome the rejection above, applicant must distinctly claim the subject matter applicant regards as the invention. Applicant may disclaim the areas or portions of the design which are considered indefinite and nonenabling in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 above by lightening the area and including a broken line boundary line. See example of suggested amendment below. New reproductions are suggested so that claim is clearly and consistently shown among the reproductions. PNG media_image2.png 348 332 media_image2.png Greyscale If lightening reproductions and utilizing boundary lines, a statement similar to the following should be included in the specification immediately preceding the claim, provided such statement does not introduce new matter (see 35 U.S.C. 132): --The broken lines and lightened areas within the broken lines illustrate portions of the article that form no part of the claimed design.— Because of the insufficient information in the drawings provided, the claimed design is in fact subject to multiple interpretations, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to reproduce the design without the use of conjecture. This renders the claim non-enabled. In order to overcome this rejection, it is suggested that the design be shown clearly and consistently among the views. All inconsistencies should be remedied or otherwise satisfactorily explained, amended to form no part of the claim, or figures cancelled [if such does not negatively impact understanding of the remaining disclosure]. Inconsistency that cannot be either corrected or satisfactorily explained should be amended to form no part of the claim with lightweight broken lines. However, care must be taken to not introduce new matter. Replacement Drawings 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. If all the figures on a drawing sheet are canceled, a replacement sheet is not required. A marked‐up copy of the drawing sheet (labeled as "Annotated Sheet") including an annotation showing that all the figures on that drawing sheet have been canceled must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change to the drawings. 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. When preparing new or replacement drawings, be careful to avoid introducing new matter. New matter is prohibited by 35 U.S.C. 132 and 37 CFR 1.121(f). REPLY GUIDELINES Signature required Applicant is reminded that any reply to this action must be signed either by a patent practitioner (i.e., a patent attorney or agent registered to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office) or by the applicant. If the applicant is a juristic entity, the reply must be signed by a patent practitioner. See 37 CFR 1.33(b). Responding to official USPTO Correspondence The USPTO transacts business in writing. Applicants may submit replies to Office actions only by: Online via the USPTO Electronic Filing System-Web (EFS-Web) (Registered eFilers only). See https://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/applying-online/efs-web-guidance-and-resources By mail: Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA, 22313-1450; By facsimile via the USPTO official fax number (571-273-8300); or By hand-carry to the USPTO Alexandria, Virginia, Customer Service Window. For more information, see https://www.uspto.gov/patents/maintain/responding-office-actions. Email communications Replies to Office actions may not be submitted via email. The merits of the application will not be discussed via email (or other electronic medium) unless appropriate authorization for internet communication is filed in the application. Form PTO/SB/439 “Authorization for Internet Communications in a Patent Application or Request to Withdraw Authorization for Internet Communications” may be used to provide such authorization and is available at the USPTO web page indicated above. The authorization may not be sent by email to the USPTO. See MPEP 502.03.II for further information. Discussions regarding the merits of an application All discussions between the applicant and the examiner regarding the merits of a pending application will be considered an interview and are to be made of record. See MPEP 713. The examiner will not discuss the merits of the application with applicant’s representative if the representative is not registered to practice before the USPTO. Appointment as applicant’s representative before the International Bureau pursuant to Rule 3 of the Common Regulations under the Hague Agreement does not entitle such representative to represent the applicant before the USPTO. Furthermore, an applicant that is a juristic entity must be represented by a patent attorney or agent registered to practice before the USPTO. Telephonic or in-person interviews A telephonic or in person interview may only be conducted with an attorney or agent registered to practice before the USPTO (“registered practitioner”) or with a pro se applicant (an applicant who is the inventor and who is not represented by a registered practitioner). The registered practitioner may either be of record or not of record. To become “of record”, a power of attorney (POA) in accordance with 37 CFR 1.32 must be filed in the application. Form PTO/AIA /80 “Power of Attorney to Prosecute Applications Before the USPTO”, available at https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms-patent-applications-filed-or-after-september-16-2012, may be used for this purpose. See MPEP 402.02(a) for further information. A registered practitioner "not of record" must show authorization to conduct an interview by completing, signing and filing an “Applicant Initiated Interview Request Form” (PTOL-413A) (available at the USPTO web page indicated above). See MPEP 405 for further information. If a pro se applicant or registered practitioner located outside of the United States wishes to communicate by telephone, the examiner may be contacted directly via email to arrange a time and date for the telephone interview. When proposing an interview appointment, include proposed days and times for the proposed call, and confirm who will initiate the call. For the examiner’s work schedule, see Examiner Contact Information. Conclusion The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 as set forth above. The references are cited as pertinent prior art. Applicant may view and obtain copies of the cited references by visiting http://www.uspto.gov/patft/index.html and pressing the “Patent Number Search” button. Contact Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE M ACHEN ZIMMERMAN whose telephone number is (703)756-1995. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 TO 5. 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, George Ulsh can be reached at 571-270-1433. 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. /C.M.Z./Examiner, Art Unit 2922 /CATHERINE S POSTHAUER/Primary Examiner of Art Unit 2922
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 01, 2025
Application Filed
Sep 11, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent D1138552
Kitchen knife
1y 8m to grant Granted Aug 04, 2026
Patent D1111648
Electric grinder
1y 6m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent D1104618
JOG DIAL FOR KITCHEN APPLIANCE
2y 12m to grant Granted Dec 09, 2025
Patent D1104621
INDICATOR LIGHT FOR KITCHEN APPLIANCE
2y 12m to grant Granted Dec 09, 2025
Patent D1104667
RECYCLED CHOPSTICK SERVING BOARD
1y 2m to grant Granted Dec 09, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
97%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+4.0%)
1y 8m (~7m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 29 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month