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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on August 29, 2024 has been entered.
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 supporting wall recited in Claim 9 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). The specification does not attribute any reference number to the claimed supporting wall and the drawings do not point to the claimed supporting wall. It is unknown what structure(s) correspond to the claimed supporting wall, or if said supporting wall is even shown in the drawings. 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 7, and 21-23 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the groove” in line 17 as well as in line 21 as well as in lines 22-23. It appears the claim should recite “the annular groove” in order to maintain consistency with “an annular groove” recited in Claim 1, line 13.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the ridge” in line 19 as well as in lines 20-21 as well as in line 23 as well as in line 29. It appears the claim should recite “the annular ridge” in order to maintain consistency with “an annular ridge” recited in Claim 1, line 13.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the material of the outer layer” in line 24. It appears the claim should recite “the plastic material with the second hardness of the outer layer” in order to maintain consistency with “an outer layer…being made of a plastic material with a second hardness” recited in Claim 1, lines 8-9.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “of the of the” in line 3. It appears one of the instances of the phrase “of the” should be deleted for grammatical purposes.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the wall” in line 4. It appears the claim should recite “the outside wall” in order to maintain consistency with “an outside wall” recited in Claim 7, lines 1-2.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “the groove” in line 3. It appears the claim should recite “the annular groove” in order to maintain consistency with “an annular groove” recited in Claim 1, line 13.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “the ridge” in line 1. It appears the claim should recite “the annular ridge” in order to maintain consistency with “an annular ridge” recited in Claim 1, line 13.
Claim 22 recites the limitation “the ridge” in line 3 twice. It appears the claim should recite “the annular ridge” in order to maintain consistency with “an annular ridge” recited in Claim 1, line 13.
Claim 22 recites the limitation “of the of the” in line 3. It appears one of the instances of the phrase “of the” should be deleted for grammatical purposes.
Claim 22 recites the limitation “the flange” in line 4. It appears the claim should recite “the annular flange” in order to maintain consistency with “an annular flange” recited in Claim 1, line 2.
Claim 23 recites the limitation “wherein rear face of the annular flange” in line 1. It appears the claim should recite “wherein the rear face of the annular flange” for grammatical purposes.
Claim 23 recites the limitation “the body” in line 6. It appears the claim should recite “the containment body” in order to maintain consistency with “a containment body” recited in Claim 1, line 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-11 and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein the annular ridge and the annular groove provide a resilient sealing element which, in use, comes into contact with the pressure hood element of the coffee machine and wherein the outer layer defines both the resilient sealing element provided at the rear face of the annular flange and the outer surface of the containment body” in lines 26-29. There was not adequate written description support at the time of filing for the sealing element to be resilient. The disclosure at the time of filing never uses the term “resilient.” There was only adequate written description support at the time of filing for the sealing element to be made of a deformable material and capable of undergoing at least partial plastic deformation (Specification, Page 10, lines 18-22).
Claims 2-11 and 20-23 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-11 and 20-23 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “A cup” in line 1 as well as the limitation “a coffee capsule” in line 1. It is unclear if the claimed cup is different from the claimed coffee capsule or if the claimed cup is the same as the coffee capsule. For purposes of examination Examiner interprets the claimed cup to also refer to the claimed coffee capsule.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a resilient sealing element” in line 26. It is unclear if this refers to “a seal” recited in Claim 1, line 15 or to an entirely different seal. For purposes of examination Examiner interprets the claim to refer to the same seal/sealing element.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the same plastic material” in line 30. It is unclear if this refers to “a plastic material with a first hardness” recited in Claim 1, line 6, “a plastic material with a second hardness lower than the first hardness” recited in Claim 1, line 9, or to an entirely different plastic material.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “wherein the inner layer is made of a more rigid material” in lines 1-2. It is unclear if this refers to “an inner layer made of a plastic material with a first hardness” recited in Claim 1, line 6 or to an entirely different material. For purposes of examination Examiner interprets the claim to refer to the same material for the inner layer.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “wherein the annular ridge is adjacent to the groove on the outer side of the groove itself” in lines 1-2. It is unclear what structure(s) “itself” refers to.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “a profile having a rectilinear stretch substantially parallel to the axis defined by corresponding walls of the annular groove and annular ridge and directed towards the axis” in lines 2-4. It is unclear what shape the claimed “rectilinear stretch” entails. The term “rectilinear” is defined as “contained by, consisting of, or moving in a straight line or lines.” It is unclear what the claimed term “rectilinear” means in the context of the claim since the claim defines corresponding walls of the annular groove and the annular ridge to be the rectilinear stretch.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “wherein the containment body has, in a portion of it in the proximity of the upper edge” in lines 1-2. The term “the proximity” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “the proximity” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what distances are required to read on the claimed “in proximity” phrase. It is unclear what spatial distance/relationship “the proximity” entails.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “it” in line 2 as well as in line 3. It is unclear what structure(s) “it” refers to.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “a cup” in line 3. It is unclear if this refers to “A cup” recited in Claim 1, line 1 or to an entirely different cup.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “it” in line 2. It is unclear what structure(s) “it” refers to.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “in the proximity of the body of the cup” in lines 1-2. The term “the proximity” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “the proximity” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what distances are required to read on the claimed “in proximity” phrase. It is unclear what spatial distance/relationship “the proximity” entails.
Claim 22 recites the limitation “the outer side” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 22 recites the limitation “itself” in line 4. It is unclear what structure “itself” refers to.
Claim 23 recites the limitation “a plane” in line 2. It is unclear if this refers to “a reference plane” recited in Claim 1, line 17 or to an entirely different plane.
Claim 23 recites the limitation “a profile having a rectilinear transition stretch joining the annular groove and the annular ridge to each other” in lines 2-3. It is unclear what shape the claimed “rectilinear stretch” entails. The term “rectilinear” is defined as “contained by, consisting of, or moving in a straight line or lines.” It is unclear what the claimed term “rectilinear” means in the context of the claim.
Claim 23 recites the limitation “an angle of inclination in the interval [0; 20] sexagesimal degrees made with a direction of the axis towards the upper edge of the body of the cup” in lines 4-6. It is unclear what angle of inclination range is being recited.
Clarification is required.
Claims 5-8, 11, and 21 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-9, 11, and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kilber et al. US 2010/0288131 (cited on Information Disclosure Statement filed August 8, 2016) in view of Abegglen et al. US 2010/0015307, Rondelli WO 2013/132435 (cited on Information Disclosure Statement filed August 8, 2016), Digiuni WO 2013/136209 (cited on Information Disclosure Statement filed August 8, 2016), and Kamerbeek et al. US 2012/0225168.
Regarding Claim 1, Kilber et al. discloses a cup (container 40) for a coffee capsule (’131, Paragraph [0042]). The cup (container 40) comprises a containment body (body 41) extending between a bottom (base 43) and an upper edge (top 45) and further comprising at the upper edge (top 45) an annular flange (flange 44) which extends around an axis and which has a rear face (undersurface of flange 44 that does not contact lid 51) directed towards the containment body (body 41) and a front face (surface of flange 44 that contacts lid 51) (‘131, Paragraph [0063]). The containment body (body 41) and the annular flange (flange 44) are defined by a multilayer structure (multilayer sheet 10) (‘131, Paragraph [0041]) having an inner layer (first layer 12) made of a plastic material with a first hardness, the inner layer (first layer 12) defining the front face (surface of flange 44 that contacts lid 51) of the annular flange (flange 44) and the inside surface of the containment body (body 41) (‘131, Paragraph [0041]), an outer layer (tenth layer 30), the outer layer (tenth layer 30) defining the outside surface of the containment body (body 41) (‘131, Paragraphs [0041] and [0063]) and being made of a plastic material with a second hardness (‘131, Paragraph [0082]), and an intermediate layer (fourth layer 18) between the inner layer (first layer 12) and the outer layer (tenth layer 30) made of a material impermeable to oxygen and aromas (‘131, FIG. 6) (‘131, Paragraph [0054]).
PNG
media_image1.png
704
1344
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kilber also discloses the individual layer thicknesses will vary in practice in accordance with the functionality desired for the various layers and depending upon the equipment chosen to make the sheet (‘131, Paragraph [0041]). However, Kilber does not explicitly state that the second hardness is lower than the first hardness so that the plastic material of the outer layer is softer than the plastic material of the inner layer, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to construct the capsule with layers thicknesses and/or rigidity in accordance with the functionality desired for the various layers and depending upon the equipment chosen to make the sheet. Kilber is also silent regarding the sealing element and the containment body being made of the same plastic material.
Abegglen et al. discloses a capsule comprising a sealing member formed of two or more injection materials having different hardness wherein an inner layer of a first material in injected on the body and an outer layer of a second material softer than the material of the inner layer is then overmolded on the inner layer wherein the outer layer is softer for reducing the closing efforts to close the enclosing members of a beverage production device on the capsule (‘307, Paragraph [0082]) wherein the sealing member is made of a thermoplastic polypropylene based elastomer (‘307, Paragraphs [0023] and [0061]) and the body and the sealing member are co-injected using a plastic material (‘307, Paragraph [0083]) and the body is a multilayered plastic laminate containing an intermediate layer between the inner layer and the outer layer made of a material (EVOH) impermeable to oxygen and aromas (‘307, Paragraph [0083]).
Kilber discloses the cup being molded by injection molding (‘131, Paragraph [0063]) using a thermoplastic sheet and/or flexible film material (‘131, Paragraph [0081]). Both Kilber and Abegglen et al. are directed towards the same field of endeavor of multilayered injection molded coffee cups used in beverage brewing machines. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the multilayered cup of Kilber and make the inner layer made of a plastic material with a first hardness and the outer layer made of a plastic material with a second hardness lower than the first hardness so that the plastic material of the outer layer is softer than the plastic material of the inner layer as taught by Abegglen et al. in order to reduce the closing efforts necessary to close the enclosing members of the beverage production device on the capsule (‘307, Paragraph [0082]). Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the capsule of Kilber and construct the sealing element and the containment body out of the same co-injected plastic material as taught by Abegglen et al. since the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination in view of Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (MPEP § 2144.07). Abegglen et al. teaches that there was known utility in the coffee capsule art to construct the capsule body and the sealing element out of the same co-injected plastic material.
Further regarding Claim 1, Kilber discloses the capsule comprising an annular flange (flange 44). However, Kilber modified with Abegglen et al. does not disclose the annular flange having, on its rear face, an annular ridge and an annular groove which extend around the axis wherein the groove forms a recess with respect to a reference plant on which the annular flange lays and wherein the ridge forms a protrusion protruding from the reference plant towards the bottom end of the containment body, the protrusion having a top wall forming a plateau, the top wall of the ridge having a radial extension, and the groove having a maximum radial extension, wherein the radial extension of the top wall of the ridge is at least double the maximum radial extension of the groove and wherein the material of the outer layer is deformable wherein the annular ridge and the annular groove provides a resilient sealing element wherein the outer layer defines both the resilient sealing element provided at the rear face of the annular flange and the outer surface of the containment body.
Rondelli discloses a cup (capsule 1) for a coffee capsule comprising a containment body (cup shaped body 2) extending between a bottom (bottom wall 4) (‘435, Page 4, lines 13-25) and an upper edge (first annular portion 13, second annular portion 14, and third annular portion 15) (‘435, Page 5, lines 18/25) and further comprising at the upper edge (first annular portion 13, second annular portion 14, third annular portion 15) an annular flange (first annular portion 13 and second annular portion 14) which extends around an axis and which has a rear face (annular seat 17) directed towards the containment body (cup shaped body 2) and a front face (surface of first annular portion 13 that is closed by lid 5) (‘435, Page 5, lines 24-25) (‘435, Page 6, lines 1-2). The annular flange (first annular portion 13 and second annular portion 14) has, on its rear face, an annular ridge (annular projection 16) and an annular groove (annular seat 17) which extend inside the axis and the annular ridge (annular projection 16) and the annular groove are capable of interacting with an end edge of a pressure hood element (seat 22) of a coffee machine to provide a seal between the pressure hood element (seat 22) and the capsule (capsule 1) (‘435, Page 6, lines 18-23). The rear face of the annular flange (first annular portion 13 and second annular portion 14) lays on a reference plane. The groove (annular seat 17) forms a recess with respect to the reference plane and has a depth. The recess is directed towards the upper edge of the containment body (cup shaped body 2). The ridge (annular projection 16) forms a protrusion protruding from the reference plane towards the bottom end (bottom 4) of the containment body (cup shaped body 2). The protrusion has a top wall forming a plateau. The top wall of the ridge (annular projection 16) has a radial extension. The groove (annular seat 17) has a maximum radial extension. The annular ridge (annular projection 16) and annular groove (annular seat 17) are deformable. The annular ridge (annular projection 16) and the annular groove (annular seat 17) provide a resilient element (plastically deformable) which, in use, comes into contact with the pressure hood element (seat 22) of the coffee machine. The resilient sealing element (plastically deformable) is provided at the rear face of the annular flange (‘435, Page 5, lines 18-25). The ridge and the surface of the containment body are made of the same plastic material (the whole capsule 1 is made of a biodegradable plastic material) (‘435, FIGS. 3-4) (‘435, Page 8, lines 4-10).
PNG
media_image2.png
884
940
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Kilber discloses using the coffee capsule in a typical beverage apparatus (‘131, Paragraph [0037] that is nonlimiting (‘131, Paragraph [0039]). Both modified Kilber and Rondelli are directed towards the same field of endeavor of coffee capsules used in beverage making machines. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the flange of the capsule of modified Kilber and incorporate onto the rear face of the annular flange an annular ridge and an annular groove which extend inside the axis and the annular ridge wherein the annular groove is capable of interacting with an end edge of a pressure hood element of a coffee machine to provide a seal between the pressure hood element and the capsule wherein the rear face of the annular flange lays on a reference plane, the groove forms a recess with respect to the reference plane and has a depth, the recess is directed towards the upper edge of the containment body, the ridge forms a protrusion protruding from the reference plane towards the bottom end of the containment body, the protrusion has a top wall forming a plateau, the top wall of the ridge has a radial extension, the groove has a maximum radial extension, the annular ridge and annular groove are deformable, the annular ridge and the annular groove provide a resilient element (plastically deformable) which, in use, comes into contact with the pressure hood element of the coffee machine, and the resilient sealing element (plastically deformable) is provided at the rear face of the annular flange wherein the ridge and the surface of the containment body are made of the same plastic material as taught by Rondelli since the configuration of the claimed sealing element disposed on the flange is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence indicating that the particular configuration of the claimed sealing element disposed on the flange was significant in view of In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (MPEP § 2144.04.IV.B.). Kamerbeek et al. teaches that there was known utility in the coffee capsule art to incorporate a sealing element onto the annular flange having the claimed structural elements and deformable properties when engaged with the pressure hood element of the coffee machine.
Further regarding Claim 1, Rondelli discloses the annular ridge and the annular groove being elastically deformable. However, Kilber modified with Abegglen et al. and Rondelli is silent regarding the sealing element undergoing at least partly plastic deformation upon interacting with the pressure hood element.
Digiuni discloses a cup (capsule 2) for a coffee capsule comprising a containment body (cup shaped body 3) extending between a bottom (lower wall 5) and an upper edge and further comprising at the upper edge an annular flange (perimetric edge 7) which extends around an axis (central axis 4) and which has a rear face directed towards the containment body (cup shaped body 3) and a front face. The annular flange (perimetric edge 7) has, on its rear face, an annular ridge (annular tooth 22) and an annular groove (annular groove 21) which extend around the axis (central axis 4). The annular ridge (annular tooth 22) and the annular groove (annular groove 21) are configured to interact with an end edge of a pressure hood element of a coffee machine to provide a seal between the pressure hood element and the capsule (capsule 2). The rear face of the annular flange (perimetric edge 7) lays on a reference plane. The groove (annular groove 21) forms a recess with respect to the reference plane and has a depth. The recess is directed towards the upper edge of the containment body (cup shaped body 3). The ridge (annular tooth 22) forms a protrusion protruding from the reference plane towards the bottom end (lower wall 5) of the containment body (cup shaped body 3). The protrusion has a top wall forming a plateau. The top wall of the ridge has a radial extension. The groove has a maximum radial extension. The annular ridge (annular tooth 22) and the annular groove (annular groove 21) provides a sealing element which, in use, comes into contact with the pressure hood element (annular edge 12) of the coffee machine (capsule holder 9) (‘209, FIG. 2) (‘209, Page 5, lines 4-11). Diguini further discloses the annular groove (annular groove 21) and the annular ridge (annular tooth 22) being deformable and undergoes at least partly plastic deformation or elastic deformation (‘209, Page 10, lines 18-21) upon interacting with the pressure hood element (annular edge 12) (‘209, FIGS. 5-6) (‘209, Page 10, lines 9-13).
PNG
media_image3.png
900
972
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Both modified Kilber and Diguini are directed towards the same field of endeavor of beverage capsules comprising a flange having an annular groove and an annular ridge intended to seal with a beverage making machine. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the flange having an annular groove and an annular ridge of modified Kilber and have the annular groove and the annular ridge being deformable and undergoing at least partly plastic deformation as taught by Diguini in order to improve the seal (‘209, Page 10, lines 9-21
Further regarding Claim 1, Kilber modified with Abegglen et al., Rondelli, and Diguini is silent regarding the radial extension of the top wall of the ridge being at least double the maximum radial extension of the groove. However, Diguini discloses the pressure hood element of the coffee machine (capsule holder 9) having a projecting annular element 19 and/or respectively an annular seat 20 (‘209, Page 7, lines 26-30) and that in the sealed configuration the projecting annular element 19 of the coffee machine is inserted in the annular groove 21 of the capsule and/or respectively the annular seal 20 of the coffee machine receiving inside it the annular tooth 22 of the capsule and that it is possible that only annular element 19 and annular groove 21 are present or only the annular seat 20 and annular tooth 22 are present or annular element 19, annular seat 20, annular tooth 22 and annular groove 21 are present (‘209, Page 8, lines 2-9), i.e. the shape of the pressure hood element of the coffee machine matches the shape of the sealing element disposed on the flange of the capsule and also that a watertight seal is created irrespective of the shape of the surface of the annular edge 12 of the capsule holder 9 or the presence of any irregularities on it (‘209, Page 12, lines 5-15). While the art does not expressly recite the radial extension as claimed, “at least double” is considered to be an obvious variant of the prior art since limitations relating to the size of the radial extension is not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art in view of In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP § 2144.04.IV.A.). Diguini teaches that the it is known in the coffee capsule art to vary the shape and dimensions of the coffee capsule holder of a beverage machine and match said shape and dimensions of the sealing element(s) disposed on the flange of the capsule and to create a watertight seal irrespective of the shape of the capsule holder or the presence of any irregularities on it (‘209, Page 12, lines 5-17). Furthermore, Kamerbeek et al. teaches a coffee machine comprising a pressure hood element having various shapes (irregularity in the form of a protrusion 34 or a recess 35) (‘168, FIGS. 3A-3B) (‘168, Paragraphs [0059]-[0060]) wherein the pressure hood element of the coffee machine sealingly engages with a flange of a capsule wherein the flange of the capsule has ridges having different shapes (‘168, Paragraph [0086]) and that the ridges possesses enough compressibility due to its shape and/or dimensions to provide a sealing engagement with the enclosing member even if the enclosing member comprises an irregularity at the location of the sealing engagement (‘168, Paragraphs [0013] and [0065]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the shape and dimensions of the ridge of modified Kilber to have the claimed radial extension of the top wall of the ridge being at least double the maximum radial extension of the groove since the configuration of the claimed ridge and groove that serves as a sealing element of the capsule is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed ridge and groove sealing elements was significant in view of In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (MPEP § 2144.04.IV.B.). Kamerbeek et al. teaches that the ridges disposed on the flange of the capsule can have various shapes and that the pressure hood element of the coffee machine that contacts the annular ridge can have irregularities in the form of a protrusion or a dent, i.e. the pressure hood element of various coffee machines have different dimensions and configurations. One of ordinary skill in the art would adjust the annular ridge and annular groove disposed on the flange of the capsule that sealingly engages with the pressure hood element of the particular coffee machine being used.
Further regarding Claim 1, the limitations “for a coffee capsule,” “adapted to receive a cup sealing lid to form the capsule,” and “wherein the annular ridge and the annular groove are configured to interact with an end edge of a pressure hood element of a coffee machine to provide a seal between the pressure hood element and the capsule,” “so that is undergoes at least partly plastic deformation upon interacting with the pressure hood element,” and “which, in use, comes into contact with the pressure hood element of the coffee machine” are seen to be recitations regarding the intended use of the “cup.” In this regard, applicant’s attention is invited to MPEP § 2114.I. and MPEP § 2114.II. which states features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally in view of In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997). If an examiner concludes that a functional limitation is an inherent characteristic of the prior art, then to establish a prima facie case of anticipation or obviousness, the examiner should explain that the prior art structure inherently possess the functionally defined limitations of the claimed apparatus in view of In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432. See also Bettcher Industries, Inc. v. Bunzl USA, Inc., 661 F.3d 629, 639-40,100 USPQ2d 1433, 1440 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The burden then shifts to applicant to establish that the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on in view of In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432; In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213, 169 USPQ 226, 228 (CCPA 1971). Additionally, apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does in view of Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A claim containing 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 if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claimed in view of Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Furthermore, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Nevertheless, Kilber discloses the front face capable of receiving a cup sealing lid (lid 51) to form the capsule (cartridge 50) (‘131, FIG. 6) (‘131, Paragraph [0064]). The prior art combination explicitly teaches the remainder of the intended use limitations as enumerated in the obviousness rejections of Claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 2, Abegglen et al. discloses a capsule comprising a sealing member formed of two or more injection materials having different hardness wherein an inner layer of a first material in injected on the body and an outer layer of a second material softer than the material of the inner layer is then overmolded on the inner layer wherein the outer layer is softer for reducing the closing efforts to close the enclosing members of a beverage production device on the capsule (‘307, Paragraph [0082]), which indicates that the inner layer is made of a more rigid material than the outer layer.
Kilber discloses the cup being molded by injection molding (‘131, Paragraph [0063]) using a thermoplastic sheet and/or flexible film material (‘131, Paragraph [0081]). Both Kilber and Abegglen et al. are directed towards the same field of endeavor of multilayered injection molded coffee cups used in beverage brewing machines. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the multilayered cup of Kilber and make the inner layer made of a more rigid material than the outer layer as taught by Abegglen et al. in order to reduce the closing efforts necessary to close the enclosing members of the beverage production device on the capsule (‘307, Paragraph [0082]).
Regarding Claim 3, Rondelli discloses the annular ridge (projection 16) being adjacent to the groove (annular seat 17) on the outer side of the groove (annular seat 17) and extending away form the rear face of the annular flange (‘435, FIGS. 3-4) (‘435, Page 6, lines 2-6). Diguini also discloses the annular ridge (annular tooth 22) being adjacent to the groove (annular groove 21) on the outer side of the groove (annular groove 21) and extending away from the rear face of the annular flange (‘209, FIGS. 5-6) (‘209, Page 8, lines 2-9).
Regarding Claim 4, Kamerbeek et al. discloses the rear face of the annular flange having, in a transversal cross section in a plane through the axis, a profile having a rectilinear stretch (vertically oriented) substantially parallel to the axis defined by corresponding walls of the annular groove and annular ridge and directed towards the axis (‘168, FIG. 6A). Kamerbeek et al. also teaches a coffee machine comprising a pressure hood element having various shapes (irregularity in the form of a protrusion 34 or a recess 35) (‘168, FIGS. 3A-3B) (‘168, Paragraphs [0059]-[0060]) wherein the pressure hood element of the coffee machine sealingly engages with a flange of a capsule wherein the flange of the capsule has ridges having different shapes (‘168, Paragraph [0086]) and that the ridges possesses enough compressibility due to its shape and/or dimensions to provide a sealing engagement with the enclosing member even if the enclosing member comprises an irregularity at the location of the sealing engagement (‘168, Paragraphs [0013] and [0065]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the shape and dimensions of the rear face of the annular flange of modified Kilber to have the claimed profile having a rectilinear stretch substantially parallel to the axis defined by corresponding walls of the annular groove and the annular ridge directed towards the axis since the configuration of the claimed rear face of the annular flange that serves as a sealing element of the capsule is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed sealing elements disposed on the rear face of the annular flange was significant in view of In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (MPEP § 2144.04.IV.B.). Kamerbeek et al. teaches that the ridges disposed on the flange of the capsule can have various shapes and that the pressure hood element of the coffee machine that contacts the annular ridge can have irregularities in the form of a protrusion or a dent, i.e. the pressure hood element of various coffee machines have different dimensions and configurations. One of ordinary skill in the art would adjust the dimensions of the rear face of the annular flange of the capsule that sealingly engages with the pressure hood element of the particular coffee machine being used.
Regarding Claim 5, Kilber modified with Abegglen et al., Rondelli, Diguini, and Kamerbeek et al. is silent regarding the annular ridge having a radial extension between 1.0 mm and 1.4 mm and a depth between 0.25 mm and 0.70 mm. However, Diguini discloses the pressure hood element of the coffee machine (capsule holder 9) having a projecting annular element 19 and/or respectively an annular seat 20 (‘209, Page 7, lines 26-30) and that in the sealed configuration the projecting annular element 19 of the coffee machine is inserted in the annular groove 21 of the capsule and/or respectively the annular seal 20 of the coffee machine receiving inside it the annular tooth 22 of the capsule and that it is possible that only annular element 19 and annular groove 21 are present or only the annular seat 20 and annular tooth 22 are present or annular element 19, annular seat 20, annular tooth 22 and annular groove 21 are present (‘209, Page 8, lines 2-9), i.e. the shape of the pressure hood element of the coffee machine matches the shape of the sealing element disposed on the flange of the capsule and also that a watertight seal is created irrespective of the shape of the surface of the annular edge 12 of the capsule holder 9 or the presence of any irregularities on it (‘209, Page 12, lines 5-15). While the art does not expressly recite the dimensions of the annular ridge as claimed, the shape and dimensions of the annular ridge is considered to be an obvious variant of the prior art since limitations relating to the size of the radial extension is not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art in view of In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP § 2144.04.IV.A.). Diguini teaches that the it is known in the coffee capsule art to vary the shape and dimensions of the coffee capsule holder of a beverage machine and match said shape and dimensions of the sealing element(s) disposed on the flange of the capsule and to create a watertight seal irrespective of the shape of the capsule holder or the presence of any irregularities on it (‘209, Page 12, lines 5-17). Furthermore, Kamerbeek et al. teaches a coffee machine comprising a pressure hood element having various shapes (irregularity in the form of a protrusion 34 or a recess 35) (‘168, FIGS. 3A-3B) (‘168, Paragraphs [0059]-[0060]) wherein the pressure hood element of the coffee machine sealingly engages with a flange of a capsule wherein the flange of the capsule has ridges having different shapes (‘168, Paragraph [0086]) and that the ridges possesses enough compressibility due to its shape and/or dimensions to provide a sealing engagement with the enclosing member even if the enclosing member comprises an irregularity at the location of the sealing engagement (‘168, Paragraphs [0013] and [0065]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the shape and dimensions of the annular ridge of modified Kilber to have the claimed radial extension and depth since the configuration of the claimed annular ridge that serves as a sealing element of the capsule is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed ridge and groove sealing elements was significant in view of In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (MPEP § 2144.04.IV.B.). Kamerbeek et al. teaches that the ridges disposed on the flange of the capsule can have various shapes and that the pressure hood element of the coffee machine that contacts the annular ridge can have irregularities in the form of a protrusion or a dent, i.e. the pressure hood element of various coffee machines have different dimensions and configurations. One of ordinary skill in the art would adjust the annular ridge disposed on the flange of the capsule that sealingly engages with the pressure hood element of the particular coffee machine being used.
Regarding Claim 6, Kilber modified with Abegglen et al., Rondelli, Diguini, and Kamerbeek et al. is silent regarding the rear face of the annular flange having an annular zone extending radially and interposed between the upper edge of the containment body and the grove, a radial extension of the annular zone, a radial extension of the groove, and a radial extension of the annular ridge satisfying the claimed equation. However, Kamerbeek et al. teaches a coffee machine comprising a pressure hood element having various shapes (irregularity in the form of a protrusion 34 or a recess 35) (‘168, FIGS. 3A-3B) (‘168, Paragraphs [0059]-[0060]) wherein the pressure hood element of the coffee machine sealingly engages with a flange of a capsule wherein the flange of the capsule has ridges having different shapes (‘168, Paragraph [0086]) and that the ridges possesses enough compressibility due to its shape and/or dimensions to provide a sealing engagement with the enclosing member even if the enclosing member comprises an irregularity at the location of the sealing engagement (‘168, Paragraphs [0013] and [0065]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the shape and dimensions of the rear face of the annular flange of modified Kilber to have the claimed annular zone, groove, and ridge dimensions since the configuration of the claimed rear face of the annular flange that serves as a sealing element of the capsule is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed ridge and groove sealing elements was significant in view of In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (MPEP § 2144.04.IV.B.). Kamerbeek et al. teaches that the ridges disposed on the flange of the capsule can have various shapes and that the pressure hood element of the coffee machine that contacts the annular ridge can have irregularities in the form of a protrusion or a dent, i.e. the pressure hood element of various coffee machines have different dimensions and configurations. One of ordinary skill in the art would adjust the dimensions of the rear face of the annular flange of the capsule that sealingly engages with the pressure hood element of the particular coffee machine being used. Furthermore, differences in the claimed dimensions of the rear face of the annular flange will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such dimensions of the rear face of the annular flange is critical. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation in view of In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP § 2144.05.II.A.).
Regarding Claims 7 and 22-23, Kilber modified with Abegglen et al., Rondelli, Diguini, and Kamerbeek et al. is silent regarding the annular ridge having an outside wall which is distal from the body of the cup and which is inclined to form a bevel joining the ridge to a portion of the rear face of the flange on the outer side of the ridge wherein the wall is inclined relative to the axis at an angle of between 0° and 45° sexagesimal degrees, the annular ridge having an inside wall proximal to the body of the cup and an outside wall distal from the body of the cup wherein the outside wall of the ridge is inclined to form a bevel joining the ridge to a portion of the rear face of the flange on the outer side of the ridge and the rear face of the annular flange having, in a transversal cross section in a plane through the axis, a profile having a rectilinear transition stretch joining the annular groove and the annular ridge to each other wherein the rectilinear stretch is parallel to the axis or is inclined relative to the axis at the claimed angle of inclination with respect to a direction of the axis towards the upper edge of the body of the cup. However, Kamerbeek et al. also teaches a coffee machine comprising a pressure hood element having various shapes (irregularity in the form of a protrusion 34 or a recess 35) (‘168, FIGS. 3A-3B) (‘168, Paragraphs [0059]-[0060]) wherein the pressure hood element of the coffee machine sealingly engages with a flange of a capsule wherein the flange of the capsule has ridges having different shapes (‘168, Paragraph [0086]) and that the ridges possesses enough compressibility due to its shape and/or dimensions to provide a sealing engagement with the enclosing member even if the enclosing member comprises an irregularity at the location of the sealing engagement (‘168, Paragraphs [0013] and [0065]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the shape and dimensions of the rear face of the annular flange of modified Kilber to have the claimed shape and dimensions since the configuration of the claimed rear face of the annular flange that serves as a sealing element of the capsule is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed ridge and groove sealing elements was significant in view of In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (MPEP § 2144.04.IV.B.). Kamerbeek et al. teaches that the ridges disposed on the flange of the capsule can have various shapes and that the pressure hood element of the coffee machine that contacts the annular ridge can have irregularities in the form of a protrusion or a dent, i.e. the pressure hood