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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 claim submission filed on September 4, 2026 and subsequent Request for Continued Examination filed September 11, 2026 have been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the sealed peripheries” in line 13. It appears the claim should recite “the first periphery and the second periphery” in order to maintain consistency with “a first periphery” recited in Claim 1, line 3 and “a second periphery” recited in Claim 1, line 4.
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.
Claims 5 and 25-28 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 5 recites the limitation “a generally circular periphery” in line 2. It is unclear if this refers to “a first periphery” recited in Claim 1, line 3, “a second periphery” recited in Claim 1, line 4, or to an entirely different periphery.
Claim 25 recites the limitation “a periphery of the lower wall” in line 3. It is unclear if this refers to “a lower member having a second periphery” recited in Claim 1, line 4 or to an entirely different periphery.
Clarification is required.
Claims 26-28 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 1-13, 21-23, 25, 31-32, 41, 43, and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rapparini US 2015/0050391 as further evidenced by Katz et al. US 2016/0016727 in view of Gualandi et al. US 2017/0334623, Volpe et al. US 2018/0362198, and Stuart US 2004/0067281.
Regarding Claim 1, Rapparini discloses a biodegradable beverage pod (capsule 1) (‘391, Paragraph [0008]) comprising an upper member (sealing element A) having a first periphery (‘391, Paragraph [0086]), a lower member (sidewall 5 and entry surface 6) having a second periphery (‘391, Paragraph [0068]), and a brewing medium (product P of coffee powder) (‘391, Paragraph [0085]) A volume is enclosed by the upper member (sealing element A) and the lower member (sidewall 5 and entry surface 6) and defines a hollow interior (containment volume V) (‘391, Paragraph [0056]). The brewing medium (product P of coffee powder) is enclosed within the hollow interior (containment volume V) in a quantity sufficient to provide and maintain a shape of the biodegradable beverage pod and to contact the upper member (sealing member A) within the hollow interior (containment volume V) (‘391, FIGS. 7-8). Katz provides evidence that it was known in the beverage capsule art that coffee powder is a type of ground coffee brewing medium (‘727, Paragraph [0003]).
PNG
media_image1.png
804
825
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Rapparini discloses the beverage pod (capsule) being biodegradable (‘391, Paragraph [0008]) and being injection molded (‘391, Paragraph [0036]) but does not explicitly state if the upper member and/or the lower member are formed at least in part of a biodegradable filter material.
Gualandi et al. discloses a biodegradable beverage pod (capsule 10) (‘623, Paragraph [0093]) comprising an upper member (closing member 30) having a first periphery, a lower member (main body 20) having a second periphery (‘623, Paragraph [0082]), and a brewing medium (product P of dehydrated dry powders). The upper member (closing member 30) and lower member (main body 20) overlap at a lip (edge 26) (‘623, Paragraph [0083]). The lip (edge 26) is formed at the overlap of the upper (closing member 30) and lower (main body 20) members and extends outwards. The upper member (closing member 30) and the lower member (main body 20) are sealed together along the lip (edge 26) (‘623, Paragraph [0091]), i.e. at the first and second peripheries. The upper member is formed at least in part of a biodegradable filter material (biodegradable closing member 130 or biodegradable closing member 230)) (‘623, Paragraphs [0104] and [0116]). A volume enclosed by the upper member and the lower member defines a hollow interior (‘623, FIG. 1) and the pod being made using a mold (‘623, Paragraph [0152]).
Both Rapparini and Gualandi et al. are directed towards the same field of endeavor of beverage pods comprising an upper member, a lower member, and a brewing medium wherein the upper member and lower member overlap at a lip using molding techniques. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the generic beverage pod of Rapparini to be a biodegradable beverage pod wherein the upper member is formed at least in part of a biodegradable filter material as taught by Gualandi et al. in order to make the beverage pod easily degradable and/or compostable (‘623, Paragraph [0010]). Additionally, Volpe et al. discloses a biodegradable beverage pod comprising an upper member (lid portion 20) formed at least in part of a biodegradable material (‘198, Paragraph [0132]) and a lower member (shell portion 30 and/or filter element 50) (‘198, Paragraph [0130]) formed at least in part of a biodegradable material (‘198, Paragraphs [0051], [0117], and [0133]) wherein the upper member (lid portion 20) and the lower member (shell portion 30) overlap at a lip (annular top surface 38) (‘198, FIG. 7) (‘198, Paragraph [0133]) wherein biodegradable plastics are more environmentally friendly and biodegrade when discarded into the environment (‘198, Paragraphs [0059]-[0060]). One of ordinary skill in the art would modify the materials from which the beverage pod of Rapparini is made to be formed out of biodegradable materials for the upper member as taught by Gualandi et al. since Volpe et al. teaches that biodegradable materials are more environmentally friendly. Furthermore, 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). Gualandi et al. and Volpe et al. teaches that there was known utility in the beverage capsule art to make the beverage capsule out of biodegradable materials. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the pod of Rapparini and seal the upper member and the lower member together at the first and second peripheries at the lip since Gualandi teaches that this was a known way to seal the upper member and lower member in a beverage pod.
Further regarding Claim 1, Rapparini discloses the brewing medium (product P of coffee powder) (‘391, Paragraph [0085]) being enclosed within the hollow interior (containment volume V) in a quantity sufficient to cause the upper member (sealing element A) to bulge outward and contacts an entirety of the upper member within the sealed pod inside the sealed peripheries (‘391, FIGS. 7-9). However, this bulge is a result of water injected under pressure inside the capsule.
PNG
media_image2.png
827
803
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Stuart discloses a beverage package (tea package 10) comprising an upper member (surface 15), a lower member (surface 16), and a brewing medium (tea) wherein the upper member (surface 15) and the lower member (surface 16) are sealed together (heat sealed at ends 13, 14) to enclose a volume defining an interior wherein the brewing medium is enclosed within the hollow interior in a quantity “sufficient by itself” to provide and maintain a bulging shape of the beverage package (tea package 10) and to contact an entirety of the upper member (surface 15) within the sealed beverage package inside the sealed peripheries by virtue of the amount of tea filled into the structure and the dimensions of the material used (‘281, FIGS. 1-3) (‘281, Paragraph [0028]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the beverage pod of modified Rapparini and enclose the brewing medium within the hollow interior in a quantity sufficient by itself to provide and maintain a bulging shape of the beverage pod and to contact an entirety of the upper member within the sealed periphery as taught by Stuart since the configuration of the claimed beverage pod to have a bulging shape as a result of the quantity of brewing medium disposed within the beverage pod 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 beverage pod was significant in view of In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (MPEP § 2144.04.IV.B.). Stuart also discloses filling the beverage package with beverage ingredients depending on the structure and dimension of material used (‘281, Paragraph [0028]). One of ordinary skill in the art would adjust the quantity of coffee disposed within the deformable beverage pod of modified Rapparini and vary the quantity as taught by Stuart based upon the amount of coffee grounds and beverage strength desired.
Further regarding Claim 1, the limitations “suitable for use in brewing a beverage in a beverage brewer” are seen to be recitations regarding the intended use of the “biodegradable beverage pod.” 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, Rapparini discloses the pod being suitable for use in brewing a beverage in a beverage brewer (beverage making machine) (‘391, Paragraph [0013]).
Regarding Claim 2, Rapparini discloses the upper member and the lower member being hermetically sealed to one another using a sealing element (‘391, Paragraph [0036]), which reads on the claimed sealing by adhering since the term “adhere” means to hold or stick by fusing.
Regarding Claim 3, Rapparini discloses the upper member (sealing element A) being generally planar in shape (‘391, FIG. 7).
Regarding Claim 4, Rapparini discloses the upper member (sealing element A) being generally circular in shape when viewed from above or below (‘391, FIG. 1).
Regarding Claim 6, Rapparini discloses the lower member (sidewall 5 and entry surface 6) including a bottom wall (entry surface 6) and a sidewall (sidewall 5) (‘391, FIG. 1) (‘391, Paragraph [0056]).
Regarding Claim 7, Rapparini discloses the lower member (sidewall 5 and entry surface 6) including a bottom wall (entry surface 6) and a sidewall (sidewall 5) (‘391, FIG. 1) (‘391, Paragraph [0056]) wherein the sidewall (sidewall 5) is generally cylindrical in shape (‘391, Paragraph [0068]).
Regarding Claim 9, Rapparini discloses the upper member (sealing element A) being generally planar in shape wherein the lower member (sidewall 5 and entry surface 6) includes a bottom wall (entry surface 6) and a sidewall (sidewall 5) wherein the bottom wall (entry surface 6) is generally planar in shape wherein a plane of the upper member (sealing element A) and a plane of the bottom wall (entry surface 6) extend in approximate parallel spaced relationship to one another (‘391, FIG. 1) (‘391, Paragraph [0056]) wherein the sidewall (sidewall 5) of the lower member extends in a cylindrical shape between the bottom wall (entry surface 6) and the upper member (sealing element A) (‘391, Paragraph [0068]).
Regarding Claims 10-11, Volpe et al. discloses the lower member (filter element 50) being generally semi-spherical (hemispherical) in shape and the lower member (filter element 50) connecting at an upper edge to the upper member and extending away from the upper member forming a semispherical shape (hemispherical) (‘198, FIG. 5) (‘198, Paragraphs [0092] and [0130]). It is noted that the claim does not specify the particular components of the lower member. The lower member reads on several structures combined together.
Both Rapparini and Volpe et al. are directed towards the same field of endeavor of beverage pods. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the shape of the lower member of Rapparini to be generally hemispherical, i.e. semispherical, as taught by Volpe et al. since the configuration of the claimed lower member 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 lower member was significant in view of In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (MPEP § 2144.04.IV.B.).
Regarding Claim 12, Rapparini discloses the brewing medium including coffee (‘391, Paragraphs [0009] and [0085]).
Regarding Claim 23, Rapparini discloses the brewing medium being enclosed within the sealed periphery in a quantity sufficient for the brewing medium to press against the upper member (sealing element A) within the sealed periphery (‘391, FIG. 7).
Regarding Claim 25, Rapparini discloses the lower member (sidewall 5 and entry surface 6) including a sidewall (sidewall 5) and a lower wall (entry surface 6) wherein the sidewall (sidewall 5) extends from a periphery of the lower wall (entry surface 6) (‘391, FIG. 1).
Regarding Claims 31-32, Rapparini is silent regarding the upper member and the lower member or only the lower member being formed of the biodegradable filter material.
Gualandi et al. discloses a biodegradable beverage pod (capsule 10) (‘623, Paragraph [0093]) comprising an upper member (closing member 30), a lower member (main body 20) (‘623, Paragraph [0082]), and a brewing medium (product P of dehydrated dry powders). The upper member (closing member 30) and lower member (main body 20) overlap at a lip (edge 26) (‘623, Paragraph [0083]). The lip (edge 26) is formed at the overlap of the upper (closing member 30) and lower (main body 20) members and extends outwards. The upper member (closing member 30) and the lower member (main body 20) are sealed together along the lip (edge 26) (‘623, Paragraph [0091]). The upper member is formed at least in part of a biodegradable filter material (biodegradable closing member 130 or biodegradable closing member 230)) (‘623, Paragraphs [0104] and [0116]). A volume enclosed by the upper member and the lower member defines a hollow interior (‘623, FIG. 1).
Both Rapparini and Gualandi et al. are directed towards the same field of endeavor of beverage pods comprising an upper member, a lower member, and a brewing medium wherein the upper member and lower member overlap at a lip. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the generic beverage pod of Rapparini to be a biodegradable beverage pod wherein the upper member is formed at least in part of a biodegradable filter material as taught by Gualandi et al. in order to make the beverage pod easily degradable and/or compostable (‘623, Paragraph [0010]). Additionally, Volpe et al. discloses a biodegradable beverage pod comprising an upper member (lid portion 20) formed at least in part of a biodegradable material (‘198, Paragraph [0132]) and a lower member (shell portion 30) formed at least in part of a biodegradable material (‘198, Paragraph [0133]) wherein biodegradable plastics are more environmentally friendly and biodegrade when discarded into the environment (‘198, Paragraphs [0059]-[0060]). One of ordinary skill in the art would modify the materials from which the beverage pod of Rapparini is made to be formed out of biodegradable materials for the upper member as taught by Gualandi et al. since Volpe et al. teaches that biodegradable materials are more environmentally friendly. Furthermore, 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). Gualandi et al. and Volpe et al. teaches that there was known utility in the beverage capsule art to make the beverage capsule out of biodegradable materials.
Regarding Claim 41, Rapparini discloses the upper member (sealing element A) and the lower member (sidewall 5 and entry surface 6) overlap at a lip (plane 2) (‘391, Paragraph [0111]). The lip (plane 2) is formed at the overlap of the upper (sealing element A) and lower (sidewall 5) members and extends outward with respect to the sealed periphery. The upper member (sealing element A) and the lower member (sidewall 5 and entry surface 6) are sealed together along the lip (plane 2) (‘391, Paragraph [0012]).
Regarding Claim 5, Rapparini discloses the lip (plane 2) terminating at a generally circular periphery (‘391, FIG. 1).
Regarding Claim 8, Rapparini discloses the lower member (sidewall 5 and entry surface 6) including a sidewall (sidewall 5) wherein the lip (plane 2) extends outward to be generally perpendicular to an upper end of the sidewall (sidewall 5) (‘391, FIG. 1).
Regarding Claim 13, the limitations “wherein the lip is configured to be held in a pod holder configured for use in a brewing chamber of a beverage brewing machine so as to fix the biodegradable beverage pod within the pod holder” are intended use limitations and as such are rejected for the same reasons regarding intended use enumerated in the rejections of Claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 21, the limitations “wherein the lip is configured to be gripped by a receiver of a brewing machine so as to fix the biodegradable beverage pod within the receiver of the brewing machine” are intended use limitations and as such are rejected for the same reasons regarding intended use enumerated in the rejections of Claim 1 provided above. Nevertheless, Rapparini discloses using the lip of the capsule to be gripped by a receiver of a brewing machine (‘391, FIG. 7) (‘391, Paragraph [0093]).
Regarding Claim 22, Rapparini discloses the upper member (sealing element A) and the lower member being sealed directly together along the lip (plane 2) (‘391, FIG. 1).
Regarding Claim 43, the limitations “wherein the upper member is configured to be pierced by an injection needle of the beverage brewing machine to inject water into the brewing medium” are intended use limitations and as such are rejected for the same reasons regarding intended use enumerated in the rejections of Claim 1 above. Nevertheless, Rapparini discloses the upper member capable of being pierced by an injection needle of the beverage brewing machine to inject water into the brewing medium (‘391, FIG. 5) (‘391, Paragraphs [0047]-[0048]).
Regarding Claim 45, Rapparini discloses the first and second peripheries being circular (‘391, FIG. 3).
Claim 42 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rapparini US 2015/0050391 as further evidenced by Katz et al. US 2016/0016727 in view of Gualandi et al. US 2017/0334623, Volpe et al. US 2018/0362198, and Stuart US 2004/0067281 as applied to claim 41 above in further view of Rivera US 2018/0116444.
Regarding Claim 42, Rapparini modified with Gualandi et al., Volpe et al., and Stuart renders obvious the limitations of the beverage pod of Claim 41 as enumerated in the rejections of Claims 1 and 41 in combination above.
Modified Rapparini is silent regarding a pod holder configured for use in a brewing chamber of a beverage brewing machine and to hold the lip of the beverage pod so as to fix the pod within the pod holder.
Rivera discloses a pod holder (coffee holder 30a-30p) configured for use in a brewing chamber of a beverage brewing machine and to hold the lip (rim) of a beverage pod (pod 41b) so as to fix the pod (pod 41b) within the pod holder (coffee holder 30a-30p) (‘444, FIGS. 39A-39C and 62A-62E) (‘444, Paragraph [0245]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the use of the pod of modified Rapparini and use the pod in a pod holder configured to hold the lip of the beverage pod so as to fix the pod within the pod holder when in use in a brewing chamber of a beverage brewing machine since Rivera teaches that it was known and conventional to use beverage pods having a lip in a pod holder configured for use in a beverage brewing machine.
Claims 1, 25-28, and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moutty US 2011/0259779 in view of Gualandi et al. US 2017/0334623, Volpe et al. US 2018/0362198, and Stuart US 2004/0067281.
Regarding Claim 1, Moutty discloses a biodegradable beverage pod (capsule 1) (‘779, Paragraph [0037]) comprising an upper member (cover 4) having a first periphery, a lower member (bottom 3) having a second periphery, and a brewing medium (coffee product 18) (‘779, Paragraphs [0044] and [0053]) wherein the upper member (cover 4) and the lower member (sidewall 2 and bottom 3) are sealed together at the first and second peripheries to enclose a volume defining a hollow interior. The upper member (cover 4) and the lower member (sidewall 2 and bottom 3) are sealed together along the lip (rim 10) (‘779, Paragraph [0045]). At least one of the upper member and the lower member is formed at least in part of a biodegradable filter material (biodegradable food cardboard) (‘779, Paragraph [0038]). A volume enclosed by the upper member (cover 4) and the lower member (sidewall 2 and bottom 3) defines a hollow interior (internal volume 19) (‘779, FIG. 1) (‘779, Paragraph [0042]). The brewing medium (coffee product 18) is enclosed within the hollow interior (internal volume 19) in a quantity that contacts the upper member (at laminated side 4a of cover 4)) within the hollow interior (internal volume 19) (product 18 occupies the whole internal volume 19) (‘779, Paragraph [0045]). Moutty discloses the brewing medium to by in the form of grounds or of powders (‘779, Paragraph [0025]).
PNG
media_image3.png
747
941
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Moutty discloses the beverage pod being made of a biodegradable cardboard (‘779, Paragraph [0038]). However, Moutty is silent regarding at least one of the upper member and the lower member being formed at least in part of a biodegradable filter material. Moutty is also silent regarding the biodegradable beverage pod maintaining a bulging shape that contacts an entirety of the upper member within the sealed periphery.
Gualandi et al. discloses a biodegradable beverage pod (capsule 10) (‘623, Paragraph [0093]) comprising an upper member (closing member 30), a lower member (main body 20) (‘623, Paragraph [0082]), and a brewing medium (product P of dehydrated dry powders). The upper member (closing member 30) and lower member (main body 20) overlap at a lip (edge 26) (‘623, Paragraph [0083]). The lip (edge 26) is formed at the overlap of the upper (closing member 30) and lower (main body 20) members and extends outwards. The upper member (closing member 30) and the lower member (main body 20) are sealed together along the lip (edge 26) (‘623, Paragraph [0091]). The upper member is formed at least in part of a biodegradable filter material (biodegradable closing member 130 or biodegradable closing member 230)) (‘623, Paragraphs [0104] and [0116]). A volume enclosed by the upper member and the lower member defines a hollow interior (‘623, FIG. 1).
Both Moutty and Gualandi et al. are directed towards the same field of endeavor of beverage pods comprising an upper member, a lower member, and a brewing medium wherein the upper member and lower member overlap at a lip. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the generic beverage pod of Moutty to be a biodegradable beverage pod wherein the upper member is formed at least in part of a biodegradable filter material as taught by Gualandi et al. in order to make the beverage pod easily degradable and/or compostable (‘623, Paragraph [0010]). Additionally, Volpe et al. discloses a biodegradable beverage pod comprising an upper member (lid portion 20) formed at least in part of a biodegradable material (‘198, Paragraph [0132]) and a lower member (shell portion 30 and/or filter element 50) (‘198, Paragraph [0130]) formed at least in part of a biodegradable material (‘198, Paragraphs [0051], [0117], and [0133]) wherein the upper member (lid portion 20) and the lower member (shell portion 30) overlap at a lip (annular top surface 38) (‘198, FIG. 7) (‘198, Paragraph [0133]) wherein biodegradable plastics are more environmentally friendly and biodegrade when discarded into the environment (‘198, Paragraphs [0059]-[0060]). One of ordinary skill in the art would modify the materials from which the beverage pod of Moutty is made to be formed out of biodegradable materials for the upper member as taught by Gualandi et al. since Volpe et al. teaches that biodegradable materials are more environmentally friendly. Furthermore, 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). Gualandi et al. and Volpe et al. teaches that there was known utility in the beverage capsule art to make the beverage capsule out of biodegradable materials.
Further regarding Claim 1, Moutty modified with Gualandi et al. and Volpe et al. is silent regarding the biodegradable beverage pod maintaining a bulging shape that contacts an entirety of the upper member within the sealed periphery.
Stuart discloses a beverage package (tea package 10) comprising an upper member (surface 15), a lower member (surface 16), and a brewing medium (tea) wherein the upper member (surface 15) and the lower member (surface 16) are sealed together (heat sealed at ends 13, 14) to enclose a volume defining an interior wherein the brewing medium is enclosed within the hollow interior in a quantity “sufficient by itself” to provide and maintain a bulging shape of the beverage package (tea package 10) and to contact the upper member (surface 15) within the hollow interior by virtue of the amount of tea filled into the structure and the dimensions of the material used (‘281, FIGS. 1-3) (‘281, Paragraph [0028]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the beverage pod of modified Moutty and enclose the brewing medium within the hollow interior in a quantity sufficient by itself to provide and maintain a bulging shape of the beverage pod and to contact an entirety of the upper member within the sealed periphery as taught by Stuart since the configuration of the claimed beverage pod to have a bulging shape as a result of the quantity of brewing medium disposed within the beverage pod 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 beverage pod was significant in view of In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (MPEP § 2144.04.IV.B.). Stuart discloses filling the beverage package with beverage ingredients depending on the structure and dimension of material used (‘281, Paragraph [0028]). One of ordinary skill in the art would adjust the quantity of coffee disposed within the deformable beverage pod of modified Moutty and vary the quantity as taught by Stuart based upon the amount of coffee grounds and beverage strength desired.
Further regarding Claim 1, the limitations “suitable for use in brewing a beverage in a beverage brewer” are seen to be recitations regarding the intended use of the “biodegradable beverage pod.” 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, Moutty discloses the pod (capsule 1) being suitable for use in brewing a beverage in a beverage brewer (percolator 30) (‘779, FIGS. 8-9) (‘779, Paragraph [0047]).
Regarding Claim 25, Moutty discloses the lower member including a sidewall (sidewall 2) and a lower wall (bottom wall 3) (‘779, FIG. 1) (‘779, Paragraph [0039]).
Regarding Claim 26, Moutty discloses the sidewall (sidewall 2) including an upper sidewall portion and a lower sidewall portion wherein the upper sidewall portion extends from the periphery of the lower wall (bottom wall 3) in a first direction and the lower sidewall portion extends from the periphery of the lower wall (bottom wall 3) in a second direction wherein the first direction is different than the second direction (‘779, FIG. 1).
Regarding Claim 27, Moutty discloses the upper member (cover 4) and the lower member (sidewall 2 and bottom 3) overlapping at the sidewall portion.
Further regarding Claim 27, the limitations “a volume defined by the lower sidewall portion and the lower wall is configured to accommodate a lower needle of a brewing machine such that the lower wall is not punctured by the lower needle” are seen to be recitations regarding the intended use of the “biodegradable beverage pod.” 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.
Regarding Claim 28, Moutty discloses a step (rims 11) configured to support a position of the lower wall (bottom 3) with respect to the lower sidewall portion (‘779, FIG. 1) (‘779, Paragraph [0041]).
Regarding Claim 43, the limitations “wherein the upper member is configured to be pierced by an injection needle of the beverage brewing machine to inject water into the brewing medium” are intended use limitations and as such are rejected for the same reasons regarding intended use enumerated in the rejections of Claim 1 above. Nevertheless, Moutty discloses the upper member being capable of being pierced by an injection needle of the beverage brewing machine to inject water into the brewing medium (‘779, FIGS. 8-9) (‘779, Paragraphs [0047]-[0049]).
Claims 33-40 and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoakim et al. US 2004/0115310 in view of Volpe et al. US 2018/0362198 or alternatively Claims 33-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoakim et al. US 2004/0115310 in view of Volpe et al. US 2018/0362198 and Stuart US 2004/0067281.
Regarding Claim 33, Yoakim et al. discloses a beverage pod (cartridge 1) comprising a filter medium (filter paper) and a ground brewing medium (ground coffee 2) wherein the filter medium (filter paper) is formed as an enclosure (first sheet 3 and second sheet 4) (‘310, Paragraph [0005]) having an interior volume and a sealed periphery (at periphery 5) wherein the ground brewing medium (ground coffee 2) is enclosed within the hollow interior in a quantity sufficient to press against the filter medium so as to provide and maintain a bulging shape of the beverage pod (cartridge 1) inside the sealed periphery (periphery 5) (‘310, FIG. 1) (‘310, Paragraph [0023]).
PNG
media_image4.png
481
1317
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Yoakim et al. is silent regarding the beverage pod being a biodegradable beverage pod comprising a filter medium of filter paper being a biodegradable filter medium.
Volpe et al. discloses a biodegradable beverage pod (beverage capsule 110) comprising a biodegradable filter medium (filter element 50) and a brewing medium (coffee) (‘198, Paragraph [0133]) wherein the biodegradable filter medium (filter element 50) is formed as an enclosure (lid portion 20 and non-woven fabric 68) having an interior volume (‘198, FIG. 4) (‘198, Paragraphs [0051], [0129], and [0132]).
Both Yoakim et al. and Volpe et al. are directed towards the same field of endeavor of beverage pods comprising a filter medium and a coffee brewing medium wherein the filter medium is formed as an enclosure having an interior volume. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the beverage pod of Yoakim et al. and construct the beverage pod to be a biodegradable beverage pod such that the filter medium that forms an enclosure having an interior volume to be made out of a biodegradable filter medium as taught by Volpe et al. in order to make an environmentally friendly package that biodegrades when discarded into the environment (‘198, Paragraphs [0059]-[0060]).
Further regarding Claim 33, in the event that it can be argued that Yoakim et al. does not teach the brewing medium being enclosed within the interior volume in a quantity sufficient to press against an entirety of the biodegradable filter medium so as to provide and maintain a bulging shape of the beverage pod inside the sealed periphery, Stuart discloses a beverage package (tea package 10) comprising an upper member (surface 15), a lower member (surface 16), and a brewing medium (tea) wherein the upper member (surface 15) and the lower member (surface 16) are sealed together (heat sealed at ends 13, 14) to enclose a volume defining an interior wherein the brewing medium is enclosed within the hollow interior in a quantity “sufficient by itself” to provide and maintain a bulging shape of the beverage package (tea package 10) and to contact the upper member (surface 15) within the hollow interior by virtue of the amount of tea filled into the structure and the dimensions of the material used (‘281, FIGS. 1-3) (‘281, Paragraph [0028]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the beverage pod of modified Yoakim et al. and enclose the brewing medium within the hollow interior in a quantity sufficient to press against the biodegradable filter medium so as to provide and maintain a bulging shape of the beverage pod inside the sealed periphery as taught by Stuart since the configuration of the claimed beverage pod to have a bulging shape as a result of the quantity of brewing medium disposed within the beverage pod 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 beverage pod was significant in view of In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (MPEP § 2144.04.IV.B.). Stuart discloses filling the beverage package with beverage ingredients depending on the structure and dimension of material used (‘281, Paragraph [0028]). One of ordinary skill in the art would adjust the quantity of coffee disposed within the deformable beverage pod of modified Yoakim et al. and vary the quantity as taught by Stuart based upon the amount of coffee grounds and beverage strength desired.
Further regarding Claim 33, the limitations “suitable for use in brewing a beverage in a beverage brewer” are seen to be recitations regarding the intended use of the “biodegradable beverage pod.” 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). Nevertheless, Yoakim et al. discloses the pod being suitable for use in brewing a beverage in a beverage brewer (device) (‘310, Paragraph [0028]).
Regarding Claim 34, Yoakim et al. discloses the filter medium (filter paper) having a generally circular cross section (‘310, FIG. 1) (‘310, Paragraph [0002]).
Regarding Claims 35-37 and 39, Yoakim et al. discloses the quantity of the brewing medium (ground coffee 2) enclosed within the interior volume being sufficient for the brewing medium (ground coffee 2) to press against an entirety of the interior surface of the biodegradable filter medium and the quantity of the brewing medium (ground coffee 2) enclosed within the interior volume overpacks the brewing medium (ground coffee 2) within the biodegradable filter medium and the quantity of the brewing medium enclosed within the interior volume filling the entirety of the interior volume (‘310, FIG. 1). Stuart also discloses the brewing medium pressing against an entirety of the interior surface of the beverage package and the quantity of the brewing medium being enclosed within the interior volume being sufficient to compress the brewing medium within the beverage package such that the biodegradable filter medium bulges outward (‘281, FIGS. 2-3) (‘281, Paragraph [0028]).
Regarding Claim 38, Yoakim et al. discloses the quantity of the brewing medium (ground coffee 2) enclosed within the interior volume to be compacted within the biodegradable filter medium (‘310, Paragraph [0014]).
Regarding Claim 40, Yoakim et al. discloses the quantity of the brewing medium (ground coffee 2) enclosed within the interior volume to be compacted within the biodegradable filter medium (‘310, Paragraph [0014]), which reads on the claimed biodegradable filter medium being “tight” against the brewing medium enclosed within the interior volume (‘310, FIG. 1).
Regarding Claim 44, the limitations “wherein the biodegradable filter medium is configured to be pierced by an injection needle of the beverage brewer to inject water into the brewing medium” are intended use limitations and as such are rejected for the same reasons regarding intended use enumerated in the rejections of Claim 33 provided above. Nevertheless, Yoakim et al. discloses the filter medium being capable of being pierced by an injection needle of the beverage brewer to inject water into the brewing medium (‘310, Paragraphs [0026]-[0027]).
Response to Arguments
Examiner notes that a new Claim Objection has been made.
Examiner also notes that new indefiniteness rejections under 35 USC 112(b) have been made.
Applicant's arguments filed September 4, 2026 on Pages 10-19 of the Remarks with respect to the obviousness rejections of independent Claim 1 under 35 USC 103(a) to Rapparini as further evidenced by Katz et al. in view of Gualandi et al., Volpe et al., and Stuart have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner notes that applicant’s comments on Pages 10-12 of the Remarks merely summarizes the disclosure of applicant’s specification and also summarizes the disclosure of Rapparini and does not specifically and distinctly point out the supposed errors of the Office Action.
Applicant argues on Page 12 of the Remarks that the Rapparini barrier film membrane is outwardly deformed by the water under pressure that is injected inside the capsule and not by the quantity of the infusion product (P) and that the barrier film membrane only deforms after the water is added and it is the pressure of the water and not the quantity of the infusion product that causes the deformation as described in Paragraph [0100]). Applicant contends that the infusion product (P) is not enclosed within the containment volume in a quantity sufficient by itself to provide and maintain a bulging shape of the containment volume (V). Applicant makes the same argument on Page 17 of the Remarks. Applicant continues summarizing the disclosure of the evidentiary reference of Katz et al. on Pages 12-13 of the Remarks.
Examiner argues the evidentiary reference of Katz is only cited to provide evidence that the coffee powder disclosed by the primary reference of Rapparini is a type of ground coffee brewing medium as is understood by one of ordinary skill in the food and beverage art. Furthermore, the obviousness rejection is based on a combination of the primary reference of Rapparini modified with several secondary references including Stuart. The secondary reference of Stuart is being relied upon to teach the limitations with respect to the limitations of Claim 1 with respect to the brewing medium enclosed within the hollow interior being in a quantity sufficient by itself to provide and maintain a bulging shape of the beverage pod and to contact an entirety of the upper member within the sealed periphery. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Therefore, this argument is not found persuasive.
Applicant argues on Pages 13-14 of the Remarks that Gualandi et al. does not disclose or suggest that the brewing medium is enclosed within the sealed pod in a quantity sufficient by itself to provide and maintain a bulging shape of a biodegradable beverage pod and to contact the upper member within the sealed pod inside the sealed peripheries as recited in Claim 1.
Examiner argues the secondary reference of Gualandi et al. is being relied upon to render obvious the limitations regarding the upper member and/or the lower member being formed at least in part of a biodegradable filter material. The secondary reference of Gualandi et al. is not being relied upon to render obvious the limitations regarding a bulging shape that contacts the upper member within the sealed pod inside the sealed peripheries. Rather, the secondary reference of Stuart is being relied upon to render obvious the limitations regarding a bulging shape that contacts the upper member within the sealed pod inside the sealed peripheries. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Therefore, this argument is not found persuasive.
Applicant argues on Pages 14-15 of the Remarks that Volpe et al. discloses a biodegradable beverage capsule including a filter element, a lid, and a filter support but Volpe et al. does not disclose or suggest that the brewing medium is enclosed within the sealed pod in a quantity sufficient by itself to provide and maintain a bulging shape of a biodegradable beverage pod and to contact an entirety of the upper member within the sealed pod inside the sealed peripheries as recited in Claim 1.
Examiner argues the secondary reference of Volpe et al. is being relied upon to render obvious the limitations regarding constructing components of the beverage capsule out of a biodegradable filter material for the purposes of making the beverage pod more environmentally friendly. The secondary reference of Volpe et al. is not being relied upon to render obvious the limitations regarding a bulging shape that contacts the upper member within the sealed pod inside the sealed peripheries. Rather, the secondary reference of Stuart is being relied upon to render obvious the limitations regarding a bulging shape that contacts the upper member within the sealed pod inside the sealed peripheries. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Therefore, this argument is not found persuasive.
Applicant argues on Pages 15-16 of the Remarks that FIGS. 1-3 of Stuart discloses a tea package 10 that is symmetrical about its longitudinal axis and opposing surfaces 15 and 16 are substantially similar in configuration and by virtue of the amount of tea filled into the structure and the dimensions of the paper used the opposing surfaces 15 and 16 bulge outwardly towards the center of the package and then slope towards each other where the surfaces are heated sealed at ends 13 and 14 as discussed by Paragraph [0028] of Stuart. Applicant asserts that Stuarts also does not disclose or suggest a sealed beverage pod that encloses a ground brewing medium in a quantity sufficient by itself to provide and maintain a bulging shape of the biodegradable beverage pod and to contact an entirety of the upper member within the sealed pod inside the sealed peripheries as recited in Claim 1. Applicant contends that Stuart discloses sealed lower 13 and upper 14 ends but not a bulging shape inside sealed peripheries as recited in Claim 1. Applicant continues that Stuart provides a package that is tubular and has a lower portion that is immersed in a liquid to brew a beverage whereas the claimed design is suitable for use as a pod in a beverage brewer that grips a lip formed by the sealed periphery while pierced by an injection needle. Paragraph [0028] of Stuart discloses the amount of tea filled into the structure and the dimensions of the paper used the opposing surfaces 15 and 16 bulge outwardly towards the center of the package and then slope towards each other where the surfaces are heat sealed at ends 13 and 14 (‘281, Paragraph [0028]).
Examiner argues FIGS. 1-3 and Paragraph [0028] of Stuart is being relied upon to teach the limitations of Claim 1 that “the brewing medium is enclosed within the hollow interior in a quantity sufficient by itself to provide and maintain a bulging shape of the beverage pod and to contact an entirety of the upper member within the sealed periphery.” FIGS. 1-3 and Paragraph [0028] disclose the tea being filled into the structure and bulging outwardly before the infusion process occurs. Stuart also discloses the infusible substance being tea leaves and coffee (‘281, Paragraph [0011]) and that the coffee can be ground coffee (‘281, Paragraph [0002]). With respect to applicant’s arguments regarding tuart provides a package that is tubular and has a lower portion that is immersed in a liquid to brew a beverage whereas the claimed design is suitable for use as a pod in a beverage brewer that grips a lip formed by the sealed periphery while pierced by an injection needle, the primary reference of Rapparini is being relied upon to teach the limitations regarding a pod used in a beverage brewer that grips a lip formed by the sealed periphery while pierced by an injection needle (‘391, FIGS. 4-9). The secondary reference of Stuart is not being relied upon to teach a pod used in a beverage brewer pierced by an injection needle, which is already disclosed by the primary reference of Rapparini. Stuart is being relied upon to render obvious the limitations of a food or beverage container having a brewing medium disposed therein in a quantity sufficient by itself to provide and maintain a bulging shape and to contact an entirety of the upper member within the sealed container inside the sealed peripheries. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Therefore, this argument is not found persuasive.
Applicant argues on Pages 17-18 of the Remarks with respect to Claim 42 that Rivera does not disclose or suggest a sealed beverage pod that encloses a ground brewing medium in a quantity sufficient by itself to provide and maintain a bulging shape of the biodegradable beverage pod and to contact an entirety of the upper member within the sealed pod inside the sealed peripheries as recited in Claim 1 and that Rivera discloses a holder to provide a taut surface in the pod for piercing of an alternative solution to the issue addressed by the claimed invention.
Examiner argues Rivera is not being relied upon to render obvious the limitations regarding the bulging shape and the corresponding sufficient quantity to contact an entirety of the upper member within the sealed pod inside the sealed peripheries. The secondary reference of Stuart is being relied upon to render obvious the bulging shape and sufficient quantity to contact an entirety of the upper member within the sealed pod inside the sealed peripheries. The secondary reference of Rivera is being relied upon to render obvious the limitations regarding a pod holder configured for use in a brewing chamber of a beverage brewing machine and to hold the lip of the beverage pod so as to fix the pod within the pod holder. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Therefore, this argument is not found persuasive.
Applicant's arguments filed September 4, 2026 on Pages 19-21 with respect to the obviousness rejections of independent Claim 1 under 35 USC 103(a) to Moutty in view of Gualandi et al., Volpe et al., and Stuart have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner notes that applicant’s comments on Pages 19-20 of the Remarks merely summarizes the disclosure of applicant’s specification and also summarizes the disclosure of Moutty and does not specifically and distinctly point out the supposed errors of the Office Action.
Applicant argues on Page 21 of the Remarks that Moutty does not disclose or suggest a sealed beverage pod that encloses a ground brewing medium in a quantity sufficient by itself to provide and maintain a bulging shape of the biodegradable beverage pod and to contact an entirety of the upper member within the sealed pod inside the sealed peripheries as recited in Claim 1. Applicant contends that Moutty discloses that the cover is placed so that it is in contact with the product but does not disclose that the capsule bulges or that a bulging shape is possible given the construction of the Moutty capsule or that a bulging shape would be advantageous.
Examiner argues the secondary reference of Stuart is being relied upon to render obvious the limitations regarding a bulging shape that contacts the upper member within the sealed pod inside the sealed peripheries. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Therefore, this argument is not found persuasive.
Applicant's arguments filed September 4, 2026 on Pages 21-24 with respect to the obviousness rejections of independent Claim 33 under 35 USC 103(a) to Yoakim et al. in view of Volpe et al. or alternatively to Yoakim et al. in view of Volpe et al. and Stuart have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on Pages 21-24 of the Remarks that the cited art does not disclose or suggest a beverage pod including brewing medium enclosed within the sealed interior volume of a biodegradable filter medium in a quantity sufficient to press against an entirety of the biodegradable filter medium so as to provide and maintain a bulging shape of the beverage pod inside the sealed periphery as recited in Claim 33. Applicant contends that Yoakim et al. discloses that when the ground coffee is well wetted it then swells well before the liquid coffee flows out. Applicant continues that Yoakim et al. also does not disclose or suggest that the brewing medium is enclosed within the sealed periphery in a quantity sufficient by itself to provide and maintain a bulging shape of the biodegradable beverage pod and to contact an entirety of the upper member within the sealed periphery. Applicant contends that Yoakim et al. only discloses that the ground coffee swells and only when wetted, i.e. when water is added to cause it to swell and does not have the pod bulge by itself without the addition of water.
Examiner notes that these comments do not specifically and distinctly point out the supposed errors of the Office Action. Stuart is being relied upon to teach the limitations of Claim 33 regarding the brewing medium being enclosed within the interior volume in a quantity sufficient to press against an entirety of the filter medium so as to provide and maintain a bulging shape of the beverage pod. Therefore, these generic allegations that Yoakim et al. in view of Volpe et al. and Stuart does not teach the limitations of Claim 33 are not found persuasive. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Therefore, these arguments are not found persuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERICSON M LACHICA whose telephone number is (571)270-0278. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-5pm, EST.
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, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at 571-270-3475. 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.
/ERICSON M LACHICA/Examiner, Art Unit 1792
