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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 submission filed on March 30th 2026 has been entered.
Claims Status:
Claims 1-13 and 15-21 are pending.
Claim 14 is cancelled.
Claims 19-21 are newly added.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 12, 16, and 18 are amended.
Claims 1-13 and 15-21 are examined as follow:
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.
Claims 1-13, 16 and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kay (US2018/0148251A1 newly cited) herein set forth as Kay, in view of Doglioni Majer (US2014/0318380A1 newly cited) herein set forth as Doglioni, and further in view of Santelli (US3301293 newly cited) herein set forth as Santelli.
Regarding claim 1, Kay discloses a container (refer to fig.1) for ingredients for making beverages, comprising:
a one-piece body (body #12, fig.1) formed as a rotation-symmetric truncated cone (refer to the shape of the body #12 in fig.1) having a larger bottom end (refer to the annotated “larger bottom” in fig.1) and a smaller top end (refer to the annotated “smaller top” in fig.1) closed by a top section (base #14, fig.1);
the larger bottom end (refer to the annotated “larger bottom” in fig.1) being open (refer to the opening at the annotated “larger bottom” in fig.1) and including an outwardly extending flange section (flange #16, fig.1);
the body (body #12, fig.1) including a container wall (refer to “wall” annotated in fig. 1) having a first wall thickness (refer to “first thickness” annotated in fig.1) outside reinforcement regions (refer to “reinforced region” annotated in fig.1);
the container wall (refer to “wall” annotated in fig. 1) comprising at least three circumferential stiffening rings (refer to the three “stiffening rings” annotated in fig.1) integrally formed with the container wall (refer to “wall” annotated in fig. 1), including three circumferential stiffening rings (refer to the three “stiffening rings” annotated in fig.1) that extend continuously around the container (refer to fig.1) in a plane perpendicular to a rotational symmetry axis (refer to the center axis of fig.1 capsule) of the truncated cone (refer to the shape of the body #12 in fig.1);
the three circumferential stiffening rings (refer to the three “stiffening rings” annotated in fig.1) being axially spaced from one another (refer to the space separating the three “stiffening rings” in fig.1) and disposed within a contiguous central portion (refer to along the three P1, P2 and P3 in fig.1 and 2) of a height (refer to P3 annotated in fig. 2) of the container (refer to fig.1) such that an upper end region (refer to region close to annotated “smaller top” in fig.1) adjacent the top section (base #14, fig.1) and a lower end region (refer to P3 below to #22 in fig.2) adjacent the larger bottom end (refer to “larger bottom” annotated in fig.1) remain free of the stiffening rings (refer to three of the “stiffening rings” annotated in fig.1) and have the first wall thickness (refer to “first thickness” annotated in fig.1);
the three circumferential stiffening rings (refer to three of the “stiffening rings” annotated in fig.1) comprising:
an upper stiffening ring (refer to “top stiffening ring” annotated in fig.1) having a second wall thickness (refer to the “second thickness” annotated in fig.1) greater than the first wall thickness (refer to “first thickness” annotated in fig.1),
a lower stiffening ring (refer to “bottom stiffening ring” annotated in fig.1) having a third wall thickness (refer to “third thickness” annotated in fig.1) greater than the first wall thickness (refer to “first thickness” annotated in fig.1, also refer to ) and less than the second wall thickness (refer to the “second thickness” annotated in fig.1), and
a middle stiffening ring (refer to “middle stiffening ring” annotated in fig.1) located between the upper and lower stiffening rings (refer to the “top” and “bottom” stiffening ring annotated in fig.1) and having a fourth wall thickness (refer to “fourth thickness” annotated in fig.1) equal than the second wall thickness (refer to the “second thickness” annotated in fig.1);
the top section (base #14, fig.1) comprising a dome portion (refer to the dome portion of the #10 in fig.1); and
a plurality of internal reinforcing ribs (ribs #18, fig.1) integrally formed on an inner surface of the dome portion (refer to the dome portion of the #10 in fig.1), the reinforcing ribs (ribs #18, fig.1) extending radially relative to the rotational symmetry axis (refer to the center axis of the container in fig.1) and projecting inwardly (refer to fig.1 for the “inwardly”).
PNG
media_image1.png
538
1153
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
406
550
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Kay does not explicitly disclose attachment of a base plate or membrane at the flange; a fourth wall thickness greater than the second wall thickness; and the first wall thickness in the lower end region.
In the field of container, Doglioni discloses attachment of a base plate (lower wall #4, fig.2) or membrane at the flange (flange #21, fig.2); a fourth wall thickness (lateral wall portion #2d, fig.1) greater than the second wall thickness (refer to t1 annotated in fig.2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kay’s container with attachment of a base plate or membrane at the flange; a fourth wall thickness greater than the second wall thickness, as taught by Doglioni, in order to provide a better reinforced capsule, reducing collapsing capsule, such that would provide a better user experience.
In the similar field of container, Santelli discloses and the first wall thickness (refer to same thickness of #16 and #12 in fig.1) in the lower end region (#16, fig.1)
PNG
media_image3.png
500
237
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kay’s container with the first wall thickness in the lower end region, as taught by Santelli, in order to increase the sizes of the container without increase material and complexity of the container, such that an easier manufacturing container is achieved.
Regarding claim 2, the modification of Kay, Doglioni and Stantelli discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, Kay or Doglioni does not explicitly disclose wherein the three circumferential are centrally located in a section extending from 10% to 90% of the container height.
In the similar field of container, Stantelli further discloses wherein the three circumferential (refer to the multiple #30 in fig.1) are centrally located in a section (#20, fig.1).
Stantelli does not specifically disclose a section extending from 10% to 90% of the container height.
However, Stantelli clearly teaches a section extending from a range of the container height (referring to fig.1 the range of height of #20 in the fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kay’s container with a section extending from 10% to 90% of the container height, for that is well known within one of ordinary skill in the art as the matter of design choice or desired application, refer to In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). Since the applicant does not state what problem solve or benefit of such limitation, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected applicant’s invention to perform equally well with Stantelli’s teaching.
Regarding claim 3, the modification of Kay, Doglioni and Stantelli discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, Kay or Doglioni does not explicitly disclose comprising two additional circumferential stiffening rings.
In the similar field of container, Stantelli further discloses comprising two additional circumferential stiffening rings (refer to the multiple number of #30 in fig.1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kay’s container with comprising two additional circumferential stiffening rings, as taught by Santelli, in order to increase the sizes of the container without increase material and complexity of the container, such that an easier manufacturing container is achieved.
Regarding claim 4, the modification of Kay, Doglioni and Stantelli discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, Kay, Doglioni or Stantelli does not explicitly disclose wherein the fourth wall thickness of the middle stiffening ring is at least two times the first wall thickness.
Regarding limitation “…wherein the fourth wall thickness of the middle stiffening ring is at least two times the first wall thickness …”, the courts have held that where general condition of claim is disposed in the prior art (see Kay’s figure 1, where prior art teaches the different tightness of wall but is not specific that this is at least two times the thickness outside the stiffening rings), it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05 IIa),
In this case, the Kay teaches certain thickness outside the stiffening rings, and having a specific thickness outside the stiffening rings is not inventive according to the courts. Varying the thickness outside the stiffening rings is recognized as a result-effective variable which is result of a routine experimentation. In this case varying the thickness outside the stiffening rings to accommodate various coffee weight and/or to provide necessary structural strength, is recognized in the art to be a result effective variable.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified container’s with the fourth wall thickness of the middle stiffening ring is at least two times the first wall thickness. In order to provide different wall’s strength to accommodate necessary structural strength at a certain height for certain amount of coffee weight.
Regarding claim 5, the modification of Kay, Doglioni and Stantelli discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, Kay, Doglioni or Stantelli does not explicitly disclose the height of the container is in a range of from 2 to 3.5 cm and/or a cone diameter of the top section of the truncated cone is in a range of from 1.6 to 2.8 cm and/or a cone diameter at the bottom of the truncated cone, without flange, is in a range of from 1.8 to 3.2 cm.
Regarding limitation “…a range of from 2 to 3.5 cm and/or a cone diameter of the top section of the truncated cone is in a range of from 1.6 to 2.8 cm and/or a cone diameter at the bottom of the truncated cone, without flange, is in a range of from 1.8 to 3.2 cm…” (Examiner note: this is alternative language and only one of the limitations need to be covered), the courts have held that where general condition of claim is disposed in the prior art (see Kay’s figure 1, where prior art teaches the different tightness of wall but is not specific that this is at least two times the thickness outside the stiffening rings), it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05 IIa),
In this case, the Kay teaches certain diameter for the top and bottom section, and having a specific diameter for the top and bottom section is not inventive according to the courts. Varying the diameter for the top and bottom section is recognized as a result-effective variable which is result of a routine experimentation. In this case varying the diameter for the top and bottom section to accommodate various coffee machine sizes and/or to accommodate appropriate amount of the coffee, is recognized in the art to be a result effective variable.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the height of the container is in a range of from 2 to 3.5 cm. In order to provide different height container for market need, accommodate various coffee machine sizes or the appropriate amount of coffee.
Regarding claim 6, the modification of Kay, Doglioni and Stantelli discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, Kay, Doglioni or Stantelli does not explicitly disclose wherein the three circumferential stiffening rings cover 15 to 40% of the container height.
Regarding limitation “…wherein the three circumferential stiffening rings cover 15 to 40% of the container height …”, the courts have held that where general condition of claim is disposed in the prior art (see Kay’s figure 1, where the prior art teaches a location for stiffening ring), it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05 IIa),
In this case, the Kay teaches certain stiffening rings cover a certain percentages of height of the container, and having a specific percentages of height of the container covered is not inventive according to the courts. Varying the percentages of height of the container covered is recognized as a result-effective variable which is result of a routine experimentation. In this case varying the stiffening rings coverage of height of the cap to accommodate necessary structural strength at a certain height for certain amount of coffee weight, is recognized in the art to be a result effective variable.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the three circumferential stiffening rings cover 15 to 40% of the container height. In order to provide specific coverage of height for the Kay’s capsules, to accommodate necessary structural strength at a certain height for certain amount of ingredient weight.
Regarding claim 7, the modification of Kay, Doglioni and Stantelli discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, Kay does not explicitly disclose wherein the first wall thickness, the second wall thickness, the third wall thickness, and the fourth wall thickness are each in a range of from 0.1 mm to 1.0 mm.
In the similar field of container, Doglioni further discloses wherein wall thickness range from 1 mm – 0.2 mm (refer to Paragraph 0058 cited: “…the thickness of the lateral wall 2 and of the inlet wall 3 is comprised in the range 1.5 mm-0.15 mm, and preferably in the range 1 mm-0.2 mm …”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kay’s container with wherein the first wall thickness, the second wall thickness, the third wall thickness, and the fourth wall thickness are each in a range of from 0.2 mm to 1.0 mm, as taught by Doglioni, in order to accommodate necessary structural strength at a certain height for certain amount of ingredient weight.
Regarding claim 8, the modification of Kay, Doglioni and Stantelli discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, Kay, Doglioni or Stantelli does not explicitly disclose wherein the middle stiffening ring is located in a middle third of the height of the container.
Regarding limitation “…wherein the middle stiffening ring is located in a middle third of the height of the container …”, the courts have held that where general condition of claim is disposed in the prior art (see Kay’s figure 1, and where prior art teaches the different height location of stiffening ring but is not specific that this is at a specific height %), it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05 IIa),
In this case, the Kay teaches certain stiffening rings location on the container, and having a specific certain stiffening rings location on the container is not inventive according to the courts. Varying the certain stiffening ring’s location on the container is recognized as a result-effective variable which is result of a routine experimentation. In this case varying the certain stiffening ring’s location on the container to accommodate various coffee machine sizes or to accommodate necessary structural strength at a certain location for certain amount of coffee weight, is recognized in the art to be a result effective variable.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the stiffening rings are located in a middle third of the container height, based on the desired application, since varying the location of the stiffening rings of said container is recognized as a result-effective variable which is result of a routine experimentation. In order to provide specific height reinforcement for the Kay’s capsules.
Regarding claim 9, the modification of Kay, Doglioni and Stantelli discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, Kay does not explicitly disclose formed of a thermoplastic polymer.
In the field of similar container, Doglioni further discloses formed of a thermoplastic polymer (refer to Paragraph 0021 cited: “…A suitable known barrier material is e.g. EVOH, that can be e.g. present as a multilayer structure with polypropylene such as PP-EVOH-PP or with polystyrol and polyethylene, such as PS-EVOH-PE…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kay’s container with formed of a thermoplastic polymer, as taught by Doglioni, in order to provide a cheaper and better recyclable material than aluminum, such that would be more environmentally friendly.
Regarding claim 10, the modification of Kay, Doglioni and Stantelli discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, Kay does not explicitly disclose wherein the thermoplastic polymer is at least one thermoplastic polymer selected from the group consisting of polyolefins, polystyrene, polyalkylene terephthalates, polyesters, polyethylene, polypropylene, polystyrene, polybutylene terephthalate, and biodegradable polyesters.
In the field of similar container, Doglioni further discloses wherein the thermoplastic polymer is polypropylene such as PP-EVOH-PP or with polystyrol and polyethylene (refer to Paragraph 0021 cited: “…A suitable known barrier material is e.g. EVOH, that can be e.g. present as a multilayer structure with polypropylene such as PP-EVOH-PP or with polystyrol and polyethylene, such as PS-EVOH-PE …”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kay’s container with wherein the thermoplastic polymer is polypropylene such as PP-EVOH-PP or with polystyrol and polyethylene, as taught by Doglioni, in order to provide a cheaper and better recyclable material than aluminum, such that would be more environmentally friendly.
Regarding claim 11, the modification of Kay, Doglioni and Stantelli discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, Kay does not explicitly disclose comprising injection-molding a material forming the container.
In the field of similar container, Doglioni further discloses comprising injection-molding a material forming the container (refer to Paragraph 0020 cited: “…The capsule can be produced by injection molding or by thermoforming…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kay’s container making processes with comprising injection-molding a material forming the container, as taught by Doglioni, in order to utilize the advantages of injection molding, such that reduce complexity and faster manufacturing of the container.
Regarding claim 12, the modification of Kay, Doglioni and Stantelli discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, Kay does not explicitly disclose wherein the base plate or the membrane is attached to the outwardly extending flange section to close the larger bottom end of the container and define an internal volume containing the ingredients for making beverages.
In the field of similar container, Doglioni further discloses wherein the base plate (plate #4, fig.2) or the membrane is attached to the outwardly extending flange (flange #21, fig.2) section to close the larger bottom end (refer to the opening end of #2d in fig.2) of the container (refer to fig.2) and define an internal volume (hollow body #5, fig.2) containing the ingredients for making 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 modified Kay’s container with wherein the base plate or the membrane is attached to the outwardly extending flange section to close the larger bottom end of the container and define an internal volume containing the ingredients for making beverages, as taught by Doglioni, in order to provide a better secured seal and also easy to use seal for created an internal volume for brewing beverages.
Regarding claim 13, the modification of Kay, Doglioni and Stantelli discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 12, Kay does not explicitly disclose wherein the base plate or the membrane is formed of aluminum, a thermoplastic polymer, or a combination thereof.
In the field of similar container, Doglioni further discloses wherein the base plate or the membrane is formed of aluminum, a thermoplastic polymer, or a combination thereof (refer to Paragraph 0094 cited: “…the lower wall 4 may be a preferably non porous membrane, for instance an aluminum or a laminated foil, preferably a laminated foil including aluminum. Other suitable materials are a paper filter, a non-woven fabric or a cap in thermoplastic or similarly rigid or semirigid material provided with holes, as already known in other capsules for the production of beverage …”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kay’s container with wherein the base plate or the membrane is formed of aluminum, a thermoplastic polymer, or a combination thereof, as taught by Doglioni, in order to provide a better secured seal and also easy to use seal for created an internal volume for brewing beverages.
Regarding claim 16, the modification of Kay, Doglioni and Stantelli discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, Kay further discloses wherein the dome portion (refer to the dome portion of the #10 in fig.1) includes one or more flat (refer to base #14, fig.1), rounded (refer to capsule #10 rounded body in fig.1), inclined (refer to the inclined surface beside #14 and #12 in fig.1), or dented portions (refer to the dented portion where #18 connected to near #14 in fig.1), or a combination thereof.
Regarding claim 18, the modification of Kay, Doglioni and Stantelli discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, Kay, Doglioni or Stantelli does not explicitly disclose wherein each of the three circumferential stiffening rings has a wall thickness at least 50% greater than the first wall thickness.
Regarding limitation “…wherein each of the three circumferential stiffening rings has a wall thickness at least 50% greater than the first wall thickness …”, the courts have held that where general condition of claim is disposed in the prior art (see Kay’s figure 6, where the prior art teaches a location for stiffening ring), it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05 IIa),
In this case, the Kay teaches stiffening rings has a certain thickness that is has a certain % greater than the first wall thickness is not inventive according to the courts. Varying the thickness of the wall is recognized as a result-effective variable which is result of a routine experimentation. In this case varying the stiffening rings coverage of height of the cap to accommodate necessary structural strength at a certain height for certain amount of coffee weight, is recognized in the art to be a result effective variable.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified wherein each of the three circumferential stiffening rings has a wall thickness at least 50% greater than the first wall thickness. In order to provide specific coverage of height for the Kay’s capsules, to accommodate necessary structural strength at a certain height for certain amount of ingredient weight.
Regarding claim 19, the modification of Kay, Doglioni and Stantelli discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, Kay, Doglioni or Stantelli does not explicitly disclose wherein the three circumferential stiffening rings cover 10 to 50% of a height of the container.
Regarding limitation “…wherein the three circumferential stiffening rings cover 10 to 50% of a height of the container …”, the courts have held that where general condition of claim is disposed in the prior art (see Kay’s figure 1, and where prior art teaches the different height location of stiffening ring but is not specific that this is at a specific height %), it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05 IIa),
In this case, the Kay teaches certain stiffening rings cover a certain percentages of height of the container, and having a specific percentages of height of the container covered is not inventive according to the courts. Varying the percentages of height of the container covered is recognized as a result-effective variable which is result of a routine experimentation. In this case varying the stiffening rings coverage of height of the to accommodate necessary structural strength at a certain location for certain amount of coffee weight, is recognized in the art to be a result effective variable.
In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the one or more stiffening rings are located in a section extending from 10% to 50% of the container height, based on the desired application, since varying the location of the stiffening rings of said container is recognized as a result-effective variable which is result of a routine experimentation. In order to provide specific height reinforcement for the Kay’s capsules.
Regarding claim 20, the modification of Kay, Doglioni and Stantelli discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, Kay, Doglioni or Stantelli does not explicitly disclose wherein the container has a maximum height of 5 cm and a maximum diameter without flange of 6 cm.
Regarding limitation “…wherein the container has a maximum height of 5 cm and a maximum diameter without flange of 6 cm …”, the courts have held that where general condition of claim is disposed in the prior art (see Kay’s figure 1, and where prior art teaches the different height location of stiffening ring but is not specific that this is at a specific height %), it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05 IIa),
In this case, the Kay teaches the container has a certain height and having a diameter without flange is not inventive according to the courts. Varying the height of the container or the diameter is recognized as a result-effective variable which is result of a routine experimentation. In this case varying the height and the diameter of the container to accommodate necessary structural strength at a certain location for certain amount of coffee weight, is recognized in the art to be a result effective variable.
In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified t wherein the container has a maximum height of 5 cm and a maximum diameter without flange of 6 cm, since varying the location of the stiffening rings of said container is recognized as a result-effective variable which is result of a routine experimentation. In order to provide specific height reinforcement for the Kay’s capsules.
Regarding claim 21, the modification of Kay, Doglioni and Stantelli discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, Kay does not explicitly disclose wherein the container is formed as a single integrally molded component including the container wall, the three circumferential stiffening rings, and the top section with the plurality of internal reinforcing ribs.
In the field of similar container, Doglioni further discloses comprising injection-molding a material forming the container (refer to Paragraph 0020 cited: “…The capsule can be produced by injection molding or by thermoforming…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kay’s container making processes with wherein the container is formed as a single integrally molded component including the container wall, the three circumferential stiffening rings, and the top section with the plurality of internal reinforcing ribs., as taught by Doglioni, in order to utilize the advantages of injection molding, such that reduce complexity and faster manufacturing of the container.
Claims 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as obvious over Kay (US2018/0148251A1 newly cited) herein set forth as Kay, in view of Doglioni Majer (US2014/0318380A1 newly cited) herein set forth as Doglioni, further in view of Santelli (US3301293 newly cited) herein set forth as Santelli, and further in view of RIJSKAMP et al (US2019/0343324A1 previously cited) herein set forth as RIJSKAMP.
Regarding claim 15, the modification of Kay, Doglioni and Stantelli discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 12, Kay, Doglioni or Stantelli does not explicitly disclose a process for making a beverage comprising beverages by inserting the capsule according to claim 12 into a beverage-preparing apparatus in which water inlet and outlet holes are provided in the capsule and a water stream is directed through the capsule and recovered in a beverage recipient.
In the field of beverage capsules, RIJSKAMP discloses a process for making a beverage (refer to fig.1B below) comprising beverages by inserting the capsule (#16B, fig.1b) according to claim 12 (refer to claim 12 rejection above) into a beverage-preparing apparatus (#1, fig.1B) in which water inlet and outlet holes are provided in the capsule and a water stream is directed through the capsule and recovered in a beverage recipient (refer to fig.1b below and Paragraph 0084 cited: “…Once the capsule 4A, 4B is included in the brew chamber, and the bottom 8A, 8B has been pierced, a fluid, in this example hot water under pressure, can be supplied to the brew chamber. Therefore it is desired that the brew chamber is leak tight. Thereto the central portion 32 is provided with a first sealing member 120. The peripheral portion 34 is provided with a second sealing member 122. The beverage preparation apparatus 2 is arranged for preparing a quantity of a beverage, suitable for consumption, using either a first capsule 4A or a second capsule 4B. The quantity can be a predetermined quantity. The quantity can also be a user selectable, user settable, or user programmable quantity…”).
PNG
media_image4.png
576
798
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kay’s capsules with a process for making a beverage comprising beverages by inserting the capsule according to claim 12 into a beverage-preparing apparatus in which water inlet and outlet holes are provided in the capsule and a water stream is directed through the capsule and recovered in a beverage recipient, as taught by RIJSKAMP, in order to provide an increase utility and marketability of the capsules, such that would increase profit margin and create better demand of the capsules.
Regarding claim 17, the modification of Kay, Doglioni, Stantelli and RIJSKAMP discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 15, Kay, Doglioni, or Stantelli does not specifically disclose wherein the water inlet and outlet holes are provided by puncturing the top section and the base plate, or the membrane thereof.
In the field of beverage capsules, RIJSKAMP discloses wherein the water inlet and outlet holes (#44 and #32 in fig.1b, both puncturing the capsules) are provided by puncturing the top section (refer to #44 puncturing top section) and the base plate, or the membrane (refer to #32 for base plate and membrane in fig.1b) thereof.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kay’s capsules with wherein the water inlet and outlet holes are provided by puncturing the top section and the base plate, or the membrane thereof, as taught by RIJSKAMP, in order to provide an increase utility and marketability of the capsules, such that would increase profit margin and create better demand of the capsules.
Response to Amendment
With respect to the Drawing Objection: the applicant’s amendment filed on March 30th 2026 that overcame the Drawing objection in the previous office action.
With respect to the rejection of 112d: the applicant’s amendment/argument filed on March 30th 2026 that overcame the Rejection of 112d in the previous office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on March 30th 2026 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection by the newly cited prior arts (refer to the 103 rejection above) .
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Parrinello et al (US2009/0078672A1) discloses a container for containing beverage that may read on some of the important cited limitation in claim 1 only.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YEONG JUEN THONG whose telephone number is (571)272-6930. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - 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, Steven W. Crabb can be reached at 5712705095. 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.
/YEONG JUEN THONG/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 August 21th 2026
/PHUONG T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights