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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on August 24, 2026 was filed after the mailing date of the Non-Final Rejection mailed on May 27, 2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 16, 18, 20, 33, and 35-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nabeiro US 2018/0317539 (cited on Office Action mailed May 27, 2026) as further evidenced by MacDonald et al. US 4,092,436 in view of Spencer “Have Your Food and Eat the Wrapper Too” <https://web.archive.org/web/20190611164217/https://foodtank.com/news/2018/09/have-your-food-and-eat-the-wrapper-too/> (archived on June 11, 2019) (herein referred to as “Spencer”) (previously furnished with Office Action mailed May 27, 2026) and Best et al. US 2005/0118311 or alternatively Claims 16, 18, 20, 33, and 35-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nabeiro US 2018/0317539 (cited on Office Action mailed May 27, 2026) in view of Spencer “Have Your Food and Eat the Wrapper Too” <https://web.archive.org/web/20190611164217/https://foodtank.com/news/2018/09/have-your-food-and-eat-the-wrapper-too/> (archived on June 11, 2019) (herein referred to as “Spencer”) (previously furnished with Office Action mailed May 27, 2026), Best et al. US 2005/0118311, Siegel et al. US 2011/0081451, and Cabrera et al. US 2005/0020744.
Examiner notes that Spencer was previously furnished with the Office Action mailed May 27, 2026).
Regarding Claims 16 and 33, it is noted that Claims 16 and 33 recite the same limitations except that Claim 16 requires the core material to be extractable roasted ground coffee powder wherein the core material is swellable whereas Claim 33 requires the core material to be tea, cocoa, drinking chocolate, milk powder, and/or dry soup.
Regarding Claims 16 and 33, Naberio discloses a capsule for preparing a beverage in a beverage preparation machine by extracting the capsule in water (‘539, Paragraphs [0038]-[0039] and [0049]) wherein the capsule comprises a core material (edible portion 3) (‘539, Paragraph [0028]) compressed under pressure (compacted) to form a compact (‘539, FIG. 1) (‘539, Paragraph [0035]) wherein the core material (edible portion 3) comprises extractable roasted ground coffee powder (‘539, Paragraphs [0044] and [0049]) and a cladding material (edible coating 1) applied on the surface of the compact wherein the cladding material (edible coating 1) is a polysaccharide (‘539, Paragraph [0030]) wherein it is known in the art to make a cladding material out of sodium alginate (‘539, Paragraph [0006]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the cladding material of Nabeiro and construct the cladding material out of sodium alginate as known in the art 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). Nabeiro already teaches that it was known in the art to make a cladding material out of sodium alginate.
Regarding the limitations of Claim 16 of the core material being extractable roasted ground coffee powder that is swellable, Nabeiro discloses the core material (edible portion 3) comprises extractable roasted ground coffee powder (‘539, Paragraphs [0044] and [0049]). Applicant admits on Page 7 of the Remarks filed August 24, 2026 that roasted ground coffee is extractable and swellable. Furthermore, MacDonald et al. provides evidence that it was known in the food and beverage art that roast and ground coffee naturally swells upon wetting (‘436, Column 2, lines 4-11). Therefore, the core material of roast and ground coffee disclosed by Nabeiro is naturally swellable as evidenced by MacDonald et al. that roast and ground coffee naturally swells upon wetting.
Regarding the limitations of Claim 33 of the core material being tea, cocoa, drinking chocolate, milk powder, and/or dry soup, Nabeiro discloses the core material (edible portion 3) being milk powder, tea, or another type of edible product (‘539, Paragraphs [0017] and [0044]).
Further regarding Claims 16 and 33, Nabeiro is silent regarding the cladding material being compostable and the polysaccharide from which the cladding material is made to be a non-crosslinked polysaccharide.
Spencer discloses a completely edible, biodegradable, and home compostable packaging (Item 4 on Page 3, Spencer) to limit wasteful packaging practices and instead create zero waste packaging (Item 12 on Page 5, Spencer). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the coated compact of Nabeiro to be compostable and construct the components of the coated compact out of compostable materials as taught by Spencer in order to create zero waste packaging (Item 12 on Page 5, Spencer). 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). Spencer teaches that there was known utility in the food and beverage art to construct food and beverage packaging entirely out of edible biodegradable materials for environmentally friendly purposes.
Further regarding Claims 16 and 33, Nabeiro in view of Spencer is silent regarding the polysaccharide from which the cladding material is made to be a non-crosslinked polysaccharide.
Best et al. discloses a flavored coating used in fat mimicry using a hydrocolloid component used in any food product where fat mimicry is desired (‘311, Paragraph [0020]) wherein the coating includes a matrix of sugar crystals and sugar glass dispersed through the flavoring agent in an amount effective to provide the coating with sufficient structural integrity to prevent flowability of the coating at temperatures less than 40°C (‘311, Paragraph [0022]) wherein the flavored coating is applied to any suitable type of food that might need a coating (‘311, Paragraph [0032]) wherein a dry hydrocolloid component is dispersed through the flavoring agent and sugar matrix to provide a slippery mouthfeel that mimics fat and disperses when in contact with saliva to mimic the melting of cocoa butter during consumption (‘311, Paragraph [0007]) wherein the hydrocolloid component includes at least one of an isolated proteinaceous material, a galactomannan, or a granular starch wherein the hydrocolloid component includes whey protein isolate, gum acacia, guar gum, and at least one starch and the hydrocolloid component includes one or more non-crosslinkable hydrocolloid (‘311, Paragraph [0008]) to readily dissolve in typical mouth temperatures and provides a cream texture, silky feeling (‘311, Paragraph [0026]).
Both modified Nabeiro and Best et al. are directed towards the same field of endeavor of coated foodstuffs comprising a coating made of a polysaccharide. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the cladding coating material made of polysaccharide of modified Nabeiro and construct the polysaccharide cladding coating material out of one or more non-crosslinkable hydrocollids as taught by Best 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). Best et al. teaches that there was known utility in the food coating art to construct coatings out of non-crosslinked starch polysaccharides to provide a desired cream texture and silky feeling (‘311, Paragraph [0026]).
Further regarding Claims 16 and 33, Nabeiro appears to show the cladding material (edible coating 1) seamlessly encasing the compact (edible product 3) (‘539, FIGS. 1-3). However, in the event that it can be argued that Nabeiro does not necessarily teach the cladding material to seamlessly encase the compact, Siegel et al. discloses a capsule having a seamless shell (‘451, Paragraph [0007]) wherein the capsule is used in making coffee beverages (‘451, Paragraphs [0149]-[0152]). Cabrera et al. discloses a food coating composition (‘744, Paragraph [0099]) comprising a first and second coat wherein the second coat is applied without a visible seam after drying (‘744, Paragraph [0003]).
Modified Nabeiro, Siegel et al., and Cabrera et al. are all directed towards the same field of endeavor of food shells comprising a core. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the capsule of modified Nabeiro and construct the cladding material encasing the core with no seam as taught by Siegel et al. and as taught by the disclosure of Cabrera et al. that applying a second coat results in no visible seam after drying since matters relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in view of In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947) (MPEP § 2144.04.I.). Siegel et al. and Cabrera et al. both teach capsules made with a cladding material encasing the core wherein the cladding material has no seam.
Further regarding Claims 16 and 33, the limitations regarding the core material being a compacted core that is compressed under pressure are product by process limitations. Even though product by process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product by process claim is the same as or obvious form a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process in view of In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (MPEP § 2113.I.). Nevertheless, applicant discloses the term “compact” to refer to a core material which has been compressed under pressure (Specification, Page 3, lines 17-19). Nevertheless, Nabeiro discloses the roasted and ground coffee to be compacted (‘539, Paragraph [0035]).
Further regarding Claims 16 and 33, the limitations “for preparing a beverage in a beverage preparation machine by extracting the compostable capsule in water up to 100°C” are seen to be recitations regarding the intended use of the “compostable capsule.” 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, Nabeiro discloses preparing the beverage using the capsule in a beverage preparation machine by extracting the capsule (‘539, Paragraph [0049]) in water between 80 and 92°C (‘539, Paragraph [0038]), which falls within the claimed water extraction temperature of up to 100°C.
Regarding Claims 18 and 35, Nabeiro discloses the cladding material (edible coating 1) being composed of 1 layer (‘539, FIGS. 1-2) or 2 layers (‘539, FIG. 3) (‘539, Paragraph [0041]). Best et al. discloses the coating material to be a non-crosslinkable hydrocolloid (‘311, Paragraph [0008]).
Further regarding Claims 18 and 35, the limitations “composed of the same or different compostable non-crosslinked polysaccharides” necessarily encompasses all compostable non-crosslinked polysaccharides. Since the prior art combination teaches the cladding material being composed of compostable non-crosslinked polysaccharides, the prior art combination necessarily has all the layers being composed of either the same or different compostable non-crosslinked polysaccharides.
Regarding Claims 20 and 36, Nabeiro discloses the capsule being spherical in shape (‘539, FIG. 1).
Claims 20 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nabeiro US 2018/0317539 as further evidenced by MacDonald et al. US 4,092,436 in view of Spencer “Have Your Food and Eat the Wrapper Too” <https://web.archive.org/web/20190611164217/https://foodtank.com/news/2018/09/have-your-food-and-eat-the-wrapper-too/> (archived on June 11, 2019) (herein referred to as “Spencer”) and Best et al. US 2005/0118311 as applied to claim 16 or claim 33 above in further view of Belville et al. EP 0 229 920 or alternatively Claims 20 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nabeiro US 2018/0317539 as further evidenced by MacDonald et al. US 4,092,436 in view of Spencer “Have Your Food and Eat the Wrapper Too” <https://web.archive.org/web/20190611164217/https://foodtank.com/news/2018/09/have-your-food-and-eat-the-wrapper-too/> (archived on June 11, 2019) (herein referred to as “Spencer”), Best et al. US 2005/0118311, Siegel et al. US 2011/0081451, and Cabrera et al. US 2005/0020744 as applied to claim 16 or claim 33 above in further view of Belville et al. EP 0 229 920.
Regarding Claims 20 and 36, Nabeiro appears to show the capsule being spherical in shape (‘539, FIG. 1). However, in the event that it can be argued that FIG. 1 of Nabeiro shows an ellipse shape that is not necessarily spherically shaped, Belville et al. discloses a capsule (tablet) capable of preparing a beverage (‘920, Page 9, lines 8-13). The capsule (tablet) comprises a core material (roast and ground coffee) compressed under pressure (‘920, Page 12, lines 12-18) to form a compact (tablet) (‘920, Page 11, lines 2-13). Belville et al. further discloses the core material comprises extractable ground coffee powder (‘920, Page 1, lines 2-6) wherein the tablet is extractable (‘920, Page 4, lines 3-10). A cladding material (coating material) continuously encases the compact wherein the cladding material (coating material) is a polysaccharide (modified starches) (‘920, Page 7, lines 34-39) (‘920, Page 8, lines 1-6). Belville et al. further discloses the capsule being spherical in shape (‘920, Page 4, lines 34-39).
Both modified Nabeiro and Belville et al. are directed towards the same field of endeavor of beverage capsules used in a beverage preparation machine by extracting the capsule in water. 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 capsule of modified Nabeiro to be spherically shaped as taught by Belville et al. in order to resist breakage during shipment and handling by forming in compact shapes without sharp corners and without protrusions (‘920, Page 4, lines 34-38). Furthermore, the configuration of the claimed 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 capsule was significant in view of In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (MPEP § 2144.04.IV.B.). Belville et al. teaches that there was known utility in the food and beverage art to construct beverage capsules having a spherical shape.
Claims 22 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nabeiro US 2018/0317539 as further evidenced by MacDonald et al. US 4,092,436 in view of Spencer “Have Your Food and Eat the Wrapper Too” <https://web.archive.org/web/20190611164217/https://foodtank.com/news/2018/09/have-your-food-and-eat-the-wrapper-too/> (archived on June 11, 2019) (herein referred to as “Spencer”) and Best et al. US 2005/0118311 as applied to claim 16 or claim 33 above in further view of Empl US 2015/0314954 or alternatively Claims 22 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nabeiro US 2018/0317539 as further evidenced by MacDonald et al. US 4,092,436 in view of Spencer “Have Your Food and Eat the Wrapper Too” <https://web.archive.org/web/20190611164217/https://foodtank.com/news/2018/09/have-your-food-and-eat-the-wrapper-too/> (archived on June 11, 2019) (herein referred to as “Spencer”), Best et al. US 2005/0118311, Siegel et al. US 2011/0081451, and Cabrera et al. US 2005/0020744 as applied to claim 16 or claim 33 above in further view of Empl US 2015/0314954.
Regarding Claims 22 and 37, Nabeiro as further evidenced by MacDonald et al in view of Spencer and Best et al. or alternatively Nabeiro as further evidenced by MacDonald et al. in view of Spencer, Best et al., Siegel et al., and Cabrera et al. is silent regarding the cladding material encasing the core material having a line of weakness which facilitates opening of the compostable capsule.
Empl discloses a capsule comprising a capsule base having a plurality of lines of weakness arranged on the capsule base that allows for easier perforation of the capsule (‘954, Paragraph [0023]).
Both modified Nabeiro and Empl are directed towards the same field of endeavor of coffee capsules. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the capsule of modified Nabeiro and incorporate a line of weakness onto the cladding material that surrounds the core material as taught by Empl in order to allow for easier opening and perforation of the capsule (‘954, Paragraph [0023]).
Response to Arguments
Examiner notes that the previous indefiniteness rejections under 35 USC 112(b) have been withdrawn in view of the amendments.
Examiner notes that applicant points to several NPL references on Pages 7-8 that are not furnished. It is unknown what these references are.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the obviousness rejections of independent Claims 16 and 33 under 35 USC 103(a) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
DE 102014000187 discloses a capsule comprising a pressed cellulose powder coated with a biodegradable material (‘187 Machine Translation, Paragraph [0001]) wherein the cellulosic powder is ground coffee pressed into a specific shape and coated with a biodegradable layer designed to be used in a coffee machine (‘187 Machine Translation, Paragraph [0007]) wherein the coating layer is a crosslinked film (‘187 Machine Translation, Paragraph [0011]).
Nishiumi et al. US 2022/0030903 discloses roasted and ground coffee swollen with water and packed in a column after swelling wherein extraction is performed with two columns connected (‘903, Paragraph [0083]).
Hensel et al. US 2021/0235934 discloses heat influences lead to varying grinding degrees and different swelling behavior of coffee powder in a brewing unit (‘934, Paragraph [0011]).
Rotchin et al. US 2020/0277130 discloses coffee grinds swelling as a result of the introduction of pressurized heated water to allow proper timing of exposure of the pressurized heated water to the ground coffee to optimize coffee flavor extraction from the grinds and taste profile (‘130, Paragraph [0054]).
Bissen US 2018/0352998 discloses ground coffee swelling when moistened with hot water to extract aroma and flavors from the ground coffee to produce a coffee cake coffee powder that is dry (‘998, Paragraph [0025]).
Gamay US 2014/0106055 discloses ground coffee can swell from water present in a concentrate (‘055, Paragraph [0109]).
Bunke et al. US 2007/0141215 discloses a process for controlling the strength of an extractable beverage (‘215, Paragraph [0002]) wherein a pseudo packed bed environment changes as the brewing cycle progresses since under dynamic extraction conditions other physical parameters such as swelling of the extractable material may become influential (‘215, Paragraph [0056]).
Torigai et al. US 2003/0051604 discloses coffee grounds swelled and steamed by hot water so that an essential ingredient of the coffee tends to be extracted (‘604, Paragraph [0002]).
Choi et al. “Effects of Coffee Extracts with Different Roasting Degrees on Antioxidant and Anti-Inflammatory Systems in Mice” (published March 16, 2018) discloses coffee roasting affects the taste, color, and aroma of coffee that induces the Maillard reaction to produce melanoidin to affect the overall antioxidant capacity and anti inflammatory effects of coffee (Choi et al., Abstract).
Scott “How Does Cold Extraction Work?” <https://driftaway.coffee/how-does-cold-extraction-work/> (published July 7, 2015) discloses varying temperature of water alters both the brew time and which solubles are extracted wherein cold brew is made at room temperatures around 70°F and takes much longer to extract solubles from the coffee beans and takes hours to make wherein the taste of coffee changes as you alter the water temperature used to make coffee (Scott, Pages 1-2).
Kumano “Hario V60 Iced Coffee Maker; Cold Brew, Shorts, and Summer” <https://umamimart.com/blogs/main/hario-v60-cold-brew-maker-shorts-summer?srsltid=AfmBOop6hvFs5awxY0BMg-qQdq6xCXgfIRvsCBQyeYjSkarxKWNgn6RX> (published May 30, 2016) discloses a method of making cold brew coffee comprising the steps of grind coffee beans (Kumano, Pages 1-2).
Kennedy “Cold Brew Minipresso” <https://www.wacaco.com/blogs/news/cold-brew-minipresso?srsltid=AfmBOopYEoZpRVoq4UOXDjGFa4JEX0ckrU80Fsa-bfqSkZBzl1bHc4wN> (published September 30, 2016) discloses a method of making coffee using a minipresso machine using any water temperature (Kennedy, Page 2).
“Coffee Makers” <https://honestgrounds.com/coffee-makers/> (published November 6, 2018) discloses cold brew coffee takes much longer than other methods but reduces acidity and produces a mellower taste (Coffee Makers, Pages 16-17).
Wilbur US 2019/0062042 discloses a filter bag containing dried ground coffee that swells and absorbs water (‘042, Paragraph [0032]).
Ferrier et al. US 2015/0099039 discloses a capsule (pod 1) (‘039, Paragraph [0076]) for preparing a beverage in a beverage preparation machine (coffee machine 3) by extracting the capsule (pod 1) (‘039, Paragraphs [0065] and [0074]) in water (‘039, Paragraph [0076]) wherein the capsule (pod 1) comprises a core material compressed to form a compact (‘039, Paragraphs [0062] and [0071]) wherein the core material comprises extractable ground coffee (‘039, Paragraphs [0054] and [0070]) wherein the core material is swellable (‘039, Paragraph [0023]).
Aregger et al. US 2015/0141313 discloses coffee grounds are capable of swelling when contacting hot water (‘313, Paragraph [0008]).
Molenaar et al. US 3,937,134 discloses a ground coffee tablet that expands or swells when percolated (‘134, Column 1, lines 8-19).
Van Damme US 3,795,182 discloses a method of making coffee comprising the steps of filling a filtering container with water to moisten ground coffee that swells under the action of water penetrating therethrough.
Rehman et al. US 5,012,629 discloses a method of making infusion coffee filter packs containing ground coffee capable of swelling and enlarging during the brewing process.
Walker et al. US 2005/0163904 discloses a double coating to delay dissolution of compounds (‘904, Paragraph [0040]) wherein the coating is an insoluble or slowly soluble substance to delay the interaction of two sets of components (‘904, Paragraph [0041]).
Black et al. US 2017/0210554 discloses a beverage capsule comprising a core material of a nutritional powder of chocolate or coffee or milk (‘554, Paragraph [0078]) wherein the nutritional powder is agglomerated (‘554, Paragraphs [0021] and [0097]) and the nutritional powder is ground (‘554, Paragraph [0105]).
Boucher et al. US 2012/0100264 discloses a beverage capsule comprising compacted ground coffee powder tablets (‘264, Paragraphs [0052] and [0101]).
Suggi Liverani et al. US 2010/0313766 discloses a pod usable in coffee machines (‘766, Paragraph [0002]) wherein the pod comprises solid, ground or powdered coffee, milk, chocolate, or tea from which extractable beverages are made (‘766, Paragraph [0009]).
Nickel US 2019/0144199 discloses a capsule comprising a powder containing polysaccharide encased by at least one crosslinked polysaccharide (‘199, Paragraph [0007]) wherein the coating layer comprises polysaccharide fibers in order to increase the mechanical stability of the coating layer (‘199, Paragraph [0017]).
The prior art made of record, cited on a previous 892 Notice of References Cited form, and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mintus et al. US 2015/0104546 discloses a coated coffee powder (‘546, Paragraph [0001]) wherein the choice of coffee powder is not critical per se (‘546, Paragraph [0010]) wherein coating the discrete particles of the coffee powder with a sufficient amount of a water soluble carbohydrate retards the solubility of the coffee in hot water, i.e. when brewing coffee (‘546, Paragraph [0008]) wherein the coating applied to the coffee particles consists of a soluble carbohydrate of monosaccharides, disaccharides, unmodified starches, hydrolyzed starches, maltodextrins, and/or gum Arabic (‘546, Paragraph [0011]) wherein gum Arabic is primarily a mixture of acidic alkaline earth metal and alkali metal salts of poly Arabic acid and/or branched polysaccharides (‘546, Paragraph [0017]).
Sengupta et al. US 2010/0303969 discloses encapsulated ground coffee powder (‘969, Paragraphs [0009] and [0084]) coated with polysaccharide protein coacervate gels formed into films (‘969, Paragraph [0008]) wherein the coating material comprises methyl cellulose or modified starches (‘969, Paragraph [0026]) and sodium alginate (‘969, Paragraph [0034]).
Young US 2012/0015094 discloses a compacted coffee tablet (‘094, Paragraph [0101]) sheathed with at least one coating layer to enhance tablet strength (‘094, Paragraph [0085]) comprising a polysaccharide (starch or cellulose or acacia sodium alginate) (‘094, Paragraphs [0058] and [0085]).
Kamerbeek et al. US 2012/0121765 discloses a beverage capsule comprising one or more tablets of roasted and ground coffee (‘765, Paragraph [0019]).
Blanc US 2013/0136843 discloses a compacted ground coffee core (‘843, Paragraph [0008]) wherein compression of the ground coffee prevents the creation of stress concentration points resulting in weak zones that lessen the cohesive properties and strength of the portion (‘843, Paragraph [0008]) wherein a shell made of compacted ground coffee encloses a core consisting of ground coffee (‘843, Paragraph [0033]).
The prior art made of record, cited on a previous Information Disclosure Statement form, and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Brodsema et al. US 2011/0159308 discloses a barrier coating comprising crosslinked polymers and components that modify the water solubility and/or barrier properties of the barrier coating (‘308, Paragraph [0082]) wherein the barrier layer is partially crosslinked or essentially completely crosslinked (‘308, Paragraph [0091]) wherein the barrier coating includes polyvinyl alcohol polymers of various levels of hydrolysis (‘308, Paragraph [0097]) wherein the barrier layer includes aqueous soluble or dispersible polymers such as cellulose derivatives and polysaccharides (‘308, Paragraph [0100]).
Hara et al. US 2021/0079252 discloses a coating composition comprising at least one crosslinking agent added to a water soluble polymer (‘252, Paragraph [0039]).
Kamerbeek et al. US 2012/0251672 discloses a beverage capsule comprising a ground coffee tablet spanning substantially the entire cross section of the capsule (‘672, FIG. 5) (‘672, Paragraph [0049]).
Nickel US 2018/0206515 discloses a capsule comprising a compacted pellet of a powder containing at least one polysaccharide such as coffee powder wherein the compacted pellet is sheathed with at least one coating layer comprising a crosslinked polysaccharide (‘515, Paragraph [0007]) wherein the at least one coating layer is starch, cellulose, chitin, carrageenan, agar, and alginates (‘515, Paragraph [0009]) wherein the capsule contains coffee, tea, drinking chocolate, cocoa, or milk powder (‘515, Paragraph [0039]).
Fisk et al. US 2013/0156898 discloses a beverage cartridge comprising ingredients such as powdered roast and ground coffee wherein the ingredients are partially or wholly insoluble or partially or wholly soluble (‘898, Paragraph [0038]).
Charles US 2016/0198732 discloses a beverage capsule comprising coffee components that are encapsulated to alter the rate of solubility of the coffee components so that coffee aroma and flavor components are released from the ground coffee at different times compared to other ingredients in the coffee product (‘732, Paragraph [0041]).
Ait Bouziad et al. US 2017/0217648 discloses a pouch for preparing a beverage by extraction of roast and ground coffee but not by dissolution of instant coffee or other soluble materials wherein the pouch comprises a filter at the outlet to prevent insoluble particles from being dispensed with the beverage (‘648, Paragraph [0006]).
Cai US 2006/0280841 discloses a capsule comprising insoluble coffee grounds (‘841, Paragraph [0030]) and that it is well known that coffee grounds has a first part comprising components that can be extracted into hot water to form a beverage and a second part comprising large molecules such as cellulose or other components that are insoluble in water (‘841, Paragraph [0053]).
Halliday et al. US 2015/0238044 discloses a beverage cartridge comprising insoluble or soluble ingredients wherein the ingredient are roast and ground coffee (‘044, Paragraph [0034]).
Massey et al. US 2015/0360854 discloses a cartridge comprising one or more insoluble of reduced solubility particles of soluble coffee (‘854, Paragraph [0137]).
Mandralis et al. US 2008/0317931 discloses a capsule comprising a hard candy casing formed of a carbohydrate wall or other water dissolvable material into which is encased a soluble coffee ingredient (‘931, FIG. 4) (‘931, Paragraph [0101]).
Fisk et al. US 2013/0337123 discloses roast and ground coffee particles are considered insoluble at coffee brewing temperatures and the solubility of a component is determined by its bulk properties (‘123, Paragraph [0014]).
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 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
Prosecution Insights