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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 14-26 and 29-35 are pending in the current application.
Claims 14, 30, and 31 are amended in the current application.
Claims 1-13, 27, and 28 are canceled in the current application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks and amendments filed November 12, 2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant requests withdrawal of the rejections under 35 USC 112(b) set forth in the previous office action.
The rejections under 35 USC 112(b) set forth in the previous office action are withdrawn due to the present claim amendments.
Applicant argues that Andreae’s capsule teaches away from “a filtering layer that is configured to remain intact during dispensing of a brewed beverage … through the filtering layer to allow for a proper filtering function” as recited in newly amended claim 14.
This is not persuasive for the following reasons. New grounds of rejection are set forth below as necessitated by the present claim amendments, where Andreae is combined with newly applied Yoakim. Yoakim teaches that it is well known and well within the abilities of those skilled in the art to form and to configure a capsule for the preparation of brewed beverages, where a seal portion formed of a delivery wall 3+57+58 contains a breakable seal 59 that allows for a flow path to an innermost non-woven filter layer 56 that does not get perforated (Yoakim, Abstract, [0025]-[0041], [0064]-[0065], Fig 10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have formed and configured Andreae’s capsule according to the guidance of Yoakim so that Andreae’s innermost non-woven fabric filter layer 3 does not get perforated (i.e., remains intact) during delivery of a brewed beverage to yield a capsule that provides better interaction with water and ingredients within the capsule, provides better sustained pressure during extraction, and prevents clogging from solid particles (Yoakim, [0009]-[0011], [0030]-[0035], [0064]-[0065]).
Applicant argues that Andreae does not disclose a protective layer overlying the outer surface of the main layer.
This is not persuasive for the following reasons. Andrae teaches a cover element for sealing a capsule comprising a laminated film 2 including at least a plurality of carrier layers 6 each provided with a weakened area (weakness lines) 7, where two of these carrier layers are adjacent to one another (Andreae, [0004]-[0005], [0041], [0052], Fig 1). One of ordinary skill in the art would have readily recognized that this disclosure yields an embodiment with an outermost first carrier layer as a protective layer (not depicted in Fig 1) and a second adjacent carrier layer 6 as a main layer (depicted in Fig 1) with a predictable and reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143).
Applicant argues that Andreae does not disclose a waterproof layer comprising a metallic layer.
This is not persuasive for the following reasons. Andreae discloses a barrier layer 5 and an adhesive layer 4 that are formed of materials that are essentially impermeable to water vapour (i.e., waterproof) (Andreae, [0010]-[0012], [0041]). The barrier layer 5 in combination with the adhesive layer 4 is considered to satisfy the claimed waterproof layer. The barrier layer 5 can comprise an inorganic filler that includes Al2O3 and/or a metal stearate (i.e., metallic components) (Andreae, [0010], [0025]-[0026], [0050]), and therefore, is considered to be a metallic-containing layer. The specification as originally filed discloses that the claimed metallic layer may be made of aluminum oxide (Spec, Pg 5), where no other requirements or prohibitions are stated. In view of the foregoing, one skilled in the art would readily conclude that any layer comprising an aluminum oxide would reasonably satisfy the metallic layer of the present invention.
Applicant argues that Jiang does not overcome the deficiencies of Andreae.
This is not persuasive for the following reasons. Jiang is no longer relied upon in the grounds of rejection. Therefore, all arguments pertaining to Jiang are considered moot.
Applicant argues that Andreae does not disclose a main layer having weakness lines penetrate to a maximum depth of 80% of a thickness of the main layer.
This is not persuasive for the following reasons. Andreae teaches the lines of weakness should be selectively be made, can completely penetrate the main layer, and should extend over approximately half of the thickness (Andreae, [0005], [0029], [0044]). From “half of the thickness” to “completely penetrate” yields an effective range of from 50% to 100%, where this range encompasses the claimed value of 80%, and therefore, renders obvious the claimed value (MPEP 2144.05). In view of the foregoing, Andreae’s lines of weakness are considered to render obvious the claim limitation of “penetrate the main layer to a depth equal to 80% of a thickness of the main layer” with a predictable and reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2144.05, MPEP 2143).
Claim Interpretations
Claim 29 recites the term “about.” In determining the range encompassed by the term "about," one must consider the context of the term as it is used in the specification and claims of the application. Ortho-McNeil Pharm., Inc. v. Caraco Pharm. Labs., Ltd., 476 F.3d 1321, 1326, 81 USPQ2d 1427, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 2007). See MPEP 2173.05(b) III A. The specification as originally filed remains silent regarding a definition for the term “about.” For the purpose of examination, limitations preceded by the term “about” are interpreted as including reasonable deviation/error associated with measurement as would be determined by one of ordinary skill in the art.
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 23 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "the reinforcement layer." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 23 directly depends from claim 14, where claim 14 does not recite or make any clear reference to a “reinforcement layer.” It is unclear what layer this is referring to. However, claim 22 recites “a reinforcement layer.” For the purposes of examination, claim 23 is interpreted as depending from claim 22, and instead reciting “The cover element of claim 22, ….”
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 14-26 and 29-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andrae et al. (US 2017/0158422 A1) in view of Yoakim et al (US 2010/0260896 A1).
Regard to Claim 14, Andrae teaches a capsule for use in preparing extracted and/or dissolved beverages such as coffee (making brewed beverages) (Andreae, [0001], [0004]). Andrae teaches a closing element that is a cover element for sealing the capsule comprising a laminated film 2 including at least a plurality of carrier layers 6 each provided with a weakened area (weakness lines) 7, where two of these carrier layers are adjacent to one another (i.e., an outermost first carrier layer as a protective layer (not depicted in Fig 1), and a second adjacent carrier layer 6 as a main layer depicted in Fig 1) (Andreae, [0004]-[0005], [0041], [0052], Fig 1). Andrae teaches the cover element laminated film 2 is fully compostable (Andreae, [0009]). The weakened area is a line of weakness that is a plurality of broken lines (Andreae, [0054]). The cover element laminated film 2 also comprises a barrier layer 5 comprising a compostable PVOH, an adhesive layer 4 comprising compostable polylactic acid (PLA), and an inner layer 3 comprising a non-woven fabric formed of compostable PLA (Andreae, [0041], Fig 1). The inner layer 3 comprising the non-woven fabric is a filter (Andreae, [0012]), and is therefore a filtering layer underlying the inner surface of the main layer. PLA is impermeable to water and moisture, and is also compostable (Andreae, [0009]-[0013]). The barrier layer 5 in combination with the adhesive layer 4 is considered to form a waterproof layer that is applied on the inner surface of the main layer 6. Andreae teaches the weakened areas are only disclosed in the carrier layers (Andreae, [0004]-[0005]), therefore, the waterproof layer and the filtering layer are free of lines of weakness. The barrier layer 5 can comprise an inorganic filler that includes Al2O3 and/or a metal stearate (i.e., metallic components) (Andreae, [0010], [0025]-[0026], [0050]), and therefore, is considered to be a metallic-containing layer. The capsule is for a brewing machine, where the filtering layer serves to filter coffee ground particles so they cannot leave the capsule while water is allowed to penetrate (Andreae, [0008], [0012]). Therefore, Andreae’s non-woven filtering inner layer 3 is considered to remain at least partially intact during brewing to allow for proper filtration.
PNG
media_image1.png
391
711
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Andreae – Figure 1
Andreae remains silent regarding a filtering layer that is configured to remain completely intact during dispensing of a brewed beverage through the filtering layer to allow for a proper filtering function.
Yoakim, however, teaches a capsule for the preparation of brewed beverages, where the capsule comprises a seal portion formed of a delivery wall 3+57+58 with a breakable seal 59 that allows for a flow path and an innermost non-woven filter layer 56 that prevents the delivery wall from being clogged by solid particles during delivery of the brewed beverage, and where the filter layer 56 does not get perforated (and therefore remains completely intact) (Yoakim, Abstract, [0025]-[0041], [0064]-[0065], Fig 10).
PNG
media_image2.png
340
654
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Yoakim – Figure 10
Since Andreae and Yoakim both pertain to capsules for brewing beverages, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed and configured Andreae’s capsule according to the guidance of Yoakim so that Andreae’s innermost non-woven fabric filter layer 3 does not get perforated (i.e., remains completely intact) during delivery of a brewed beverage to yield a capsule that provides better interaction with water and ingredients within the capsule, provides better sustained pressure during extraction, and prevents clogging from solid particles as taught by Yoakim (Yoakim, [0009]-[0011], [0030]-[0035], [0064]-[0065]).
Regarding Claim 15, modified Andreae teaches capsules are typically designed for brewing at high pressure (6-20 bar) (Andreae, [0002]; Yoakim, [0041]). Andreae teaches that pressure build up causes the weakened areas of the main layer to undergo controlled tearing (Andreae, [0007]-[0008], [0045]). Andreae’s conventional operating pressure range of 6-20 bar overlaps the claimed range of 5-15 bar, and therefore, renders obvious the claimed range (MPEP 2144.05). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that Andreae’s main (carrier) layer would have at least rendered obvious the claimed configuration of breaking at a weakening of the lines of weakness when a pressure at the inner surface is greater than or equal to 5 bar and less than or equal to 15 bar with a predictable and reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143).
Regarding Claims 16 and 17, modified Andea teaches the lines of weakness completely penetrate the main (carrier) layer (Andreae, [0005]), therefore to a depth equal to 100% of the thickness the main layer.
Regarding Claim 18, modified Andreae teaches waterproof layer (the combination of the barrier layer 5 and the adhesive layer 4) is disposed between the non-woven filtering layer 3 and the main (carrier) layer 6 (Andreae, [0041], Fig 1).
Regarding Claim 19, modified Andreae teaches the lines of weakness are defined by notches formed on the main layer by mechanical material removal such as heated stamping, perforating, tearing, or etching (Andreae, [0005]-[0006]).
Regarding Claims 20 and 26, modified Andreae teaches the lines of weakness are formed by laser burning (i.e., a thermal ablation technique) (Andreae, [0005], [0029], [0041]).
Regarding Claim 21, modified Andreae teaches the lines of weakness 7 are formed in each of the plurality of carrier layers 6, where two of these carrier layers are adjacent to one another and include an outermost first carrier layer as the protective layer (not depicted in Fig 1) and the second adjacent carrier layer 6 as a main layer (depicted in Fig 1) (Andreae, [0004]-[0005], [0041], [0052], Fig 1).
Regarding Claim 22, modified Andreae teaches an additional interposed carrier layer is connected to a side of the barrier layer 5 facing away from the non-woven fabric filtering layer 3 to protect and stiffen the laminated film 2 (Andreae, [0013]-[0014]).
Regarding Claim 23, modified Andreae teaches the additional interposed carrier layer is preferably weakened (Andreae, [0014]). However, disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971). See MPEP 2123, II. Therefore, modified Andreae is considered to provide a broader disclosure that includes non-weakened and weakened additional interposed carrier layer, where the weakened additional interposed carrier layer is a preferred embodiment and the non-weakened additional interposed carrier layer is a non-preferred embodiment.
Regarding Claim 24, modified Andreae teaches the components of the laminated film 2 including the main (carrier) layer 6 can comprise cellulose material that includes cellophane (Andreae, [0012], [0023], [0041]).
Regarding Claim 25, modified Andreae teaches the laminated film 2 is fully compostable (Andreae, [0009], [0017], [0022]).
Regarding Claim 29, modified Andreae teaches the lines of weakness should be selectively be made, can completely penetrate the main layer, and should extend over approximately half of the thickness (Andreae, [0005], [0029], [0044]). From “half of the thickness” to “completely penetrate” yields an effective range of from 50% to 100%, where this range encompasses the claimed value of 80%, and therefore, renders obvious the claimed value (MPEP 2144.05). In view of the foregoing, modified Andreae’s lines of weakness are considered to render obvious the claim limitation of “penetrate the main layer to a depth equal to about 80% of a thickness of the main layer” with a predictable and reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2144.05, MPEP 2143).
Regarding Claims 30 and 31, modified Andea teaches the lines of weakness completely penetrate the main (carrier) layer (Andreae, [0005]), therefore to a depth equal to 100% of the main layer relative to thickness and material.
Regarding Claim 32, modified Andea teaches the barrier layer is shielded on each side with a shielding carrier material layer (Andreae, [0010]-[0011]), where the shielding carrier material layer is a cellulose that is preferably impermeable to moisture and can comprise an inorganic filler that includes Al2O3 and/or a metal stearate (i.e., metallic components) (Andreae, [0010], [0025]-[0026], [0050]). All layers are bonded to one another by an adhesive that is a glue (Andreae, [0017]). Therefore, modified Andreae discloses embodiments that can include two barrier layers that are metallic-containing layers bonded together by an adhesive layer with a predictable and reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 33, modified Andea teaches the metallic-containing barrier layer 5 can comprise an inorganic filler that includes Al2O3 (aluminum oxide) (Andreae, [0010], [0050]).
Regarding Claim 34, modified Andea teaches the metallic-containing barrier layer 5 can comprise an inorganic filler that includes SiO2 (silicon oxide) and/or Al2O3 (aluminum oxide) (Andreae, [0010], [0050]).
Regarding Claim 35, modified Andea teaches the capsule and closing element as discussed above for claim 14. Modified Andreae teaches the lines of weakness should be selectively be made, can completely penetrate the main layer, and should extend over approximately half of the thickness (Andreae, [0005], [0029], [0044]). From “half of the thickness” to “completely penetrate” yields an effective range of from 50% to 100%, where this range encompasses the claimed value of 80%, and therefore, renders obvious the claimed value (MPEP 2144.05). In view of the foregoing, modified Andreae’s lines of weakness are considered to render obvious the claim limitation of “penetrate the main layer to a depth equal to 80% of a thickness of the main layer” with a predictable and reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2144.05, MPEP 2143).
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 ELI D STRAH whose telephone number is (571)270-7088. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am - 7 pm.
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, Aaron Austin can be reached at 571-272-8935. 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.
/Eli D. Strah/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights