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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 19-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kruger (US 20220097954 A1).
Regarding claim 19
Kruger discloses a capsule (1 Fig 1) for preparation of a liquid foodstuff (title) comprising:
a capsule body (1) being at least one of symmetrical (capsule 1 is of rotationally symmetrical, [0042 middle]) or (“or” is interpreted as optional and not required) frustoconical design (frustoconical base element 2, [0042 top]), having a side wall (7) and a bottom (base 5) as well as a lid (4) closing the capsule body (1) for forming a receiving space (brewing chamber 13) for receiving at least one substance for the preparation of the liquid foodstuff (brewing substance inside the capsule 1 for making a beverage),
wherein the capsule body (1 Fig 3) has a circumferential flange-shaped rim (circular flange 6, Fig 3) with a sealing surface (sealing plane 8) for tightly connecting the lid (4) to the capsule body (1),
on a base (15) of the circumferential rim (6), opposite the sealing surface (8), a circumferentially projecting sealing lip (sealing embossment 10 extends in the circumferential direction, [0053 middle]) is arranged for sealingly cooperation with a contact surface of a capsule receptacle (contact surface of capsule receptacle receiving element 22, Fig 3, [0047 bottom]) of a preparation machine (14),
the sealing lip (sealing lip 10 is hollow Fig 4) is hollow and has two legs (inner and outer flanks 11, 12) each of which forming an angle within the range of 90° ± 10° with the sealing surface of the flange-shaped rim (85° angle with sealing surface 8 in Fig 4),
the sealing lip has at least a height of 0.0393 inches (1.0 mm) measured from the sealing surface of the flange-shaped rim (height 18 is, perpendicular to sealing plane 8, between 0.9 and 1.0 millimeters, [0060 bottom], Fig 3 shows the height 18 from the sealing surface 8 of rim 6),
the sealing lip being shaped and dimensioned in such a way that the sealing lip can (“can” is interpreted as capable of but not required) absorb at least one force of 500 N, without plastic deformation (the sealing lip 10 is the same or similar to the claimed sealing lip, thus capable of absorbing a force of 500 N without plastic deformation,
additionally, the sealing lip 10 disclosed by Kruger is made of aluminum as part of the capsule lid 4 preferably formed from aluminum, [0044], and the claimed sealing lip is also made of aluminum according to the instant specification [0031] which describes that the sealing lip can be formed from a metal, in particular from aluminium or an aluminium alloy,
thus, the sealing lip of Kruger would have the same or similar mechanical and material properties as the claimed sealing lip, thus capable of absorbing similar amount of forces without plastic deformation,
furthermore, Kruger teaches an improved sealing action between the flange and the brewing chamber element, without the need for increased forces as the brewing chamber is closed, [0012], where a deformation of maximum of 5% is preferable [0019 middle], which is interpreted to without plastic deformation).
Regarding claim 20
Kruger discloses the capsule according to claim 19.
Kruger further discloses wherein the bottom is formed integrally with the side wall (bottom 5 is integral with side wall 7, Fig 1).
Regarding claim 21
Kruger discloses the capsule according to claim 19.
Kruger further discloses wherein the capsule body (1 Fig 1), the flange-shaped rim (6) and the sealing lip (10) are formed in one piece (one assembly in Figs 1-3).
Regarding claim 22
Kruger discloses the capsule according to claim 19.
Kruger further discloses wherein the sealing lip has a width of between 0.0157 inches (0.4 mm) and 0.0354 inches (0.9 mm) (width of sealing lip 10 interpreted to be the left radius R0.22, distance 0.26, and right radius R0.22, together is 0.7 mm, annotated in Fig 4).
PNG
media_image1.png
964
1034
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 23
Kruger discloses the capsule according to claim 19.
Kruger further discloses wherein the sealing lip is round at its highest point (sealing lip 10 is curved, i.e. round, in Fig 4).
Regarding claim 24
Kruger discloses the capsule according to claim 23.
Kruger further discloses wherein the sealing lip, at its highest point, has a radius of curvature between 0.0059 inches (0.15 mm) and 0.0177 inches (0.45 mm) (highest point of sealing lip 10 includes the 2 radii and a straight portion connecting the two, thus the highest point also includes R0.22 mm, annotated in Fig 4).
PNG
media_image2.png
964
1034
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 25
Kruger discloses the capsule according to claim 19.
Kruger further discloses wherein in a transition (19 in Fig 4) of the sealing lip (10) to the base of the flange-shaped rim (sealing surface 8 at the base of the rim 6) a radius of curvature between 0.0039 inches (0.1 mm) and 0.0197 inches (0.5 mm) is provided (R0.21 mm, annotated in Fig 4).
PNG
media_image3.png
960
1400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 26
Kruger discloses the capsule according to claim 25.
Kruger further discloses wherein the radius of curvature facing the side wall (R0.28 is facing side wall 7, Fig 4) is larger than the radius of curvature facing away from the side wall (R0.21 facing away from side wall 7).
Regarding claim 27
Kruger discloses the capsule according to claim 19.
Kruger further discloses wherein the flange-shaped rim has no further sealing contours (rim 6 does not have more sealing contours, only bead 9, Fig 4).
Regarding claim 28
Kruger discloses the capsule according to claim 27.
Kruger further discloses wherein the flange-shaped rim has exactly one sealing lip (only one sealing lip 10 on rim 6, Fig 4).
Regarding claim 29
Kruger discloses the capsule according to claim 19.
Kruger further discloses wherein the sealing lip is formed from a metal (the sealing lip 10 is made of aluminum since capsule lid 4 is preferably formed from aluminum, [0044]).
Regarding claim 30
Kruger discloses the capsule according to claim 19.
Kruger further discloses wherein the sealing lip is formed from at least one of aluminium (the sealing lip 10 is made of aluminum since capsule lid 4 is preferably formed from aluminum, [0044]).
Regarding claim 31
Kruger discloses the capsule according to claim 19.
Kruger further discloses wherein the capsule body (1 Fig 4) in the region of the sealing lip (10) has a material thickness of 0.0039 inches (0.1 mm) ± 0.00197 inches (0.05 mm) (sealing embossment has an average material thickness between 0.05 and 0.3 millimeters, 0025 top).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 32-33 and 36-38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kruger in view of Dijkstra (US 20180289201 A1).
Regarding claim 32
Kruger discloses the capsule according to claim 19.
Kruger is silent on wherein the side wall of the capsule body has a diameter of 1.18 inches (30.1 mm) ± 0.0089 inches (0.2 mm).
However, Dijkstra teaches a capsule body (22 Fig 3A) wherein the side wall of the capsule body has a diameter of 29.5 mm (0073 top).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the capsule body in Kruger wherein the side wall of the capsule body has a diameter of 29.9 mm to 30.3 mm, because a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. In this case, the prior art of Kruger in view of Dijkstra teaches a capsule body with a side wall diameter of 29.5 mm which is very close to the claimed diameter lower range of 29.9 mm. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
Regarding claim 33
Kruger discloses the capsule according to claim 19.
Kruger is silent on wherein the capsule body has a height from the bottom to the sealing surface of the flange- shaped rim of between 1.063 inches (27.0 mm) and 1.122 inches (28.5 mm).
However, Dijkstra teaches a capsule body (22 Fig 3A) having a height from the bottom to the sealing surface of the flange- shaped rim of between 1.063 inches (27.0 mm) and 1.122 inches (28.5 mm) (total height of the capsule body 12 is 28.4 mm, [0075 bottom]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the capsule body in Kruger to have a height from the bottom to the sealing surface of the flange- shaped rim of 28.4 mm, as suggested and taught by Dijkstra, because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art (a capsule body having a height of 28.4 mm, from the bottom to the sealing surface of a flange-shaped rim) and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (manufacture the capsule body to have a height of 28.4 mm) with no change in their respective functions (to contain ingredients for use in a beverage preparation machine), and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395.
Regarding claim 36
Kruger discloses the capsule according to claim 19.
Kruger is silent on wherein the capsule body has a bottom surface with a diameter of 0.394 (10 mm) ± 0.039 inches (1 mm).
However, Dijkstra teaches a capsule body (22 Fig 3A) wherein a bottom surface with a diameter of 8.3 mm (DEE being the bottom surface is 8.3 mm, Fig 3A, [0075 bottom]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the capsule body in Kruger wherein a bottom surface with a diameter of 9 mm to 11 mm, because a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. In this case, the prior art of Kruger in view of Dijkstra teaches a capsule body with a bottom surface diameter of 8.3 mm which is very close to the claimed diameter lower range of 9 mm. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
Regarding claim 37
Kruger discloses the capsule according to claim 19.
Kruger is silent on wherein the side wall of the capsule body has a step-shaped widening in the area close to the base, the widening being arranged at a distance from the sealing surface of 0.118 inches (3.0 mm) to 0.276 inches (7.0 mm).
However, Dijkstra teaches a capsule body (22 Fig 3A) wherein the side wall (16) of the capsule body has a step-shaped (region contained between the two arrows as indicated by annotated version of Fig. 3A) widening in the area close to the base (18), the widening being arranged at a distance from the sealing surface of 0.118 inches (3.0 mm) to 0.276 inches (7.0 mm) (distance between the side wall 16 and “an outermost edge of the outwardly extending flange 20 is about 3.8 millimeter”, [0021 bottom]).
PNG
media_image4.png
670
643
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the capsule body in Kruger wherein the side wall of the capsule body has a step-shaped widening in the area close to the base, the widening being arranged at a distance from the sealing surface of 3.8 mm, as suggested and taught by Dijkstra, because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art (a capsule body having a widening arranged at a distance from the sealing surface of 3.8 mm) and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (manufacture the capsule body to have a widening arranged at a distance from the sealing surface of 3.8 mm) with no change in their respective functions (to contain ingredients for use in a beverage preparation machine), and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395.
Regarding claim 38
Kruger in view of Dijkstra discloses the capsule according to claim 37.
Kruger in view of Dijkstra further discloses wherein the widening comprises a change of an external diameter of between 0.0039 inches (0.1 mm) and 0.0079 inches (2.0 mm)
Dijkstra teaches the widening diameter by the following equation: IDF-DB=29.5mm-23.3mm=6.2mm. In view of the above, the maximum change is 6.2mm. Without specifying a start and end point to delimit the “change”, a smaller region that falls within the external diameter of between 0.1 mm to 2.0 mm is construed to be the widening (annotated in Fig 3A).
PNG
media_image5.png
498
478
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kruger in view of Doglioni (US 20140318380 A1).
Regarding claim 34
Kruger discloses the capsule according to claim 19.
Kruger further discloses wherein the capsule body has the shape of a double truncated cone (Fig 1 shows capsule 1 having double truncated cone).
Kruger is silent on wherein the capsule body has the shape of a double truncated cone with a first cone angle of 60° ± 5°.
However, Doglioni teaches toward a capsule for making a beverage. Doglioni teaches a first cone angle of 60ᵒ±5ᵒ (an acute angle α in the range 10ᵒ-65ᵒ, claim 6 and Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute Kruger’s first cone angle with Doglioni’s first cone angle, because substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results of brewing a beverage with a capsule.
Claim(s) 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kruger in view of Doglioni, as applied to claim 34 above, and further in view of Dijkstra.
Regarding claim 35
Kruger in view of Doglioni discloses the capsule according to claim 34.
Kruger in view of Doglioni is silent on having a second cone angle of 6° ± 5°.
However, Dijkstra teaches a capsule having a double truncated cone with a second cone angle of 6° ± 5° (the side wall of the aluminum capsule body encloses an angle with a line transverse to the central capsule body axis of about 97.5°, Fig 3A, [0022 bottom], thus the angle between the sidewall and the center axis is 97.5°- 90°=7.5°).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute Kruger’s angle of the second cone angle with Dijkstra’s angle of second cone angle, because substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results of brewing a beverage with a capsule.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, filed on 05/15/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 19 under U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kruger.
Kruger teaches a capsule made of aluminum and having the same or similar dimensions as the claimed sealing lip of the invention. Additionally, Kruger teaches an improved sealing action between the flange and the brewing chamber element, without the need for increased forces as the brewing chamber is closed ([0012]), which is the opposite of plastic deformation.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Thuyhang Nguyen whose telephone number is (571) 272-5317. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-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, Edward F. Landrum can be reached on (571) 272-5567. 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.
/Thuyhang N Nguyen/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights