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 .
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.
Claim(s) 15-17, 19-20 and 25-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 a1 as being anticipated by Versini (US 20100215808) [provided in IDS].
Regarding claim 15, Versini discloses “a pod” (abstract, i.e., a capsule and capsule envelope and fig.1) “for holding beverage material” (intended use. Fig.1, 2), “the pod” (fig.1) comprising:
“a holder” (fig.1, 3), and
“a wrapper” (fig.1, 4) fully enclosing “the holder” (fig.1, 3), “the wrapper defining an exterior of the pod” (fig.1, 4) and “unattached to the holder” (fig.1, 3), wherein “the exterior of the pod” (fig.1, 4) “is configured to be punctured to form an exterior inlet and an exterior outlet” (abstract, i.e., for puncturing the capsule envelope … said conditioning envelope is adapted to be punctured on essentially any portion of its surface. This suggest that the exterior of pod 4 is capable of being punctured to form an exterior inlet and an exterior outlet. Examiner noted that the exterior inlet and exterior outlet formed is not part of the original product (hence, a pod), the inlet and outlet forms after piercing process);
wherein “the holder and wrapper do not require joining and remain separate from each other when assembled together to define the pod” (fig.1 shows the holder 3 and the wrapper 4 do not require joining and remain separate from each other when assembled together to define the pod).
Regarding claim 16, Versini discloses “the holder has an extruded shape” (fig.1 shows he holder 3 has an extruded shape on the right hand portion with respect to a horizontal center line of cross-sectional view).
Regarding claim 17, Versini discloses “the holder comprises at least two flat sides parallel to each other” (annotated fig.1 shows two flat surface or sides parallel to each other).
Regarding claim 19, Versini discloses “the holder defines a rigid structure of the pod” (holder has a sufficient rigid structure in order to hold ingredients. Examiner noted that “rigid” is a relative term).
Regarding claim 20, Versini discloses “the holder” (3) includes “at least one opening” (the holder 3 is a filter envelope. See para.0032, i.e., filtering envelope is advantageously constituted by a porous woven or non-woven material. This suggest that the filter inherently has a openings because it must be porous material allowing air or liquid to pass through) having “at least a portion” (user defined portion of the holder 3) aligning with “the exterior outlet to define a fluid outlet” (Examiner noted that the exterior inlet and exterior outlet formed is not part of the original product (hence, a pod), the inlet and outlet forms after piercing process)
Regarding claim 25, Versini discloses “the wrapper is a single piece of material” (4 is a single piece of material when assembled).
Regarding claim 26, Versini discloses “the wrapper is snug fit around the holder” (the gap between the wrapper 4 and the holder 3 is small to allow snug fit).
Claim(s) 15, 21 and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 a1 as being anticipated by Versini (US 20100215808) [provided in IDS]. (interpretation with respect to aperture).
Regarding claim 15, Versini discloses “a pod” (abstract, i.e., a capsule and capsule envelope and fig.1) “for holding beverage material” (intended use. Fig.1, 2), “the pod” (fig.1) comprising:
“a holder” (fig.1, 3), and
“a wrapper” (fig.1, 4) fully enclosing “the holder” (fig.1, 3), “the wrapper defining an exterior of the pod” (fig.1, 4) and “unattached to the holder” (fig.1, 3), wherein “the exterior of the pod” (fig.1, 4) “is configured to be punctured to form an exterior inlet and an exterior outlet” (abstract, i.e., for puncturing the capsule envelope … said conditioning envelope is adapted to be punctured on essentially any portion of its surface. This suggest that the exterior of pod 4 is capable of being punctured to form an exterior inlet and an exterior outlet. Examiner noted that the exterior inlet and exterior outlet formed is not part of the original product (hence, a pod), the inlet and outlet forms after piercing process);
wherein “the holder and wrapper do not require joining and remain separate from each other when assembled together to define the pod” (fig.1 shows the holder 3 and the wrapper 4 do not require joining and remain separate from each other when assembled together to define the pod).
Regarding claim 21, Versini discloses “the holder includes at least one aperture having at least a portion” (the holder 3 is a filter envelope. See para.0032, i.e., filtering envelope is advantageously constituted by a porous woven or non-woven material. This suggest that the filter inherently has openings because it must be porous material allowing air or liquid to pass through) aligning with “the exterior inlet to define a fluid inlet” (Examiner noted that the exterior inlet and exterior outlet formed is not part of the original product (hence, a pod), the inlet and outlet forms after piercing process).
Regarding claim 36, Versini discloses “the at least one aperture is two apertures that overlap to define a common aperture having at least a portion” (the holder 3 is a filter envelope. See para.0032, i.e., filtering envelope is advantageously constituted by a porous woven or non-woven material. This suggest that the filter inherently has openings because it must be porous material allowing air or liquid to pass through. A user defined area can be a common aperture formed by the apertures having at least a portion) aligning with “the exterior inlet to define the fluid inlet” (Examiner noted that the exterior inlet and exterior outlet formed is not part of the original product (hence, a pod), the inlet and outlet forms after piercing process).
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) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Versini (US 20100215808) [provided in IDS] in view of Design Choice.
Regarding claim 18, Versini discloses “the extruded shape is a annotated fig.1).
Versini is silent regarding the shape is cuboid shape.
However, the applicant has not disclosed that “cuboid shape” solves any stated problem or provides any unexpected results. The examiner notes that cuboid shape just for design configuration. As such, the examiner considers this limitation to be a design choice. Therefore, it would have been obvious as a matter of design choice to modify Versini having cuboid shape as proposed by the applicant, since the applicant has not disclosed that cuboid shape solves any stated problem or provides any unexpected results and it appears that a protrusion with a shape would perform equally well, since cuboid shape just for design configuration.
PNG
media_image1.png
1552
1102
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6, 8-14, 27-35 are allowed.
Claims 22-24 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 15-26 and 36 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's submission of an information disclosure statement under 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the timing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p) on 04/23/2026 prompted the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 609.04(b). 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 JIMMY CHOU whose telephone number is (571)270-7107. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday.
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 Landrum can be reached at (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.
/JIMMY CHOU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights