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 .
Response to Amendment
A preliminary amendment was filed 11/23/2022 concurrently with the remaining papers. In this amendment, claims 1-32, 41, and 45-53 were cancelled, claims 33-40 and 42-44 were amended, and claims 54-66 were added. Accordingly, claims 33-40, 42-44 and 54-66 are currently pending examination.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means.” Specifically, claim 33 recites the enclosing member comprises “fluid injection means for supplying fluid under pressure into the capsule.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Figure 1, paragraphs 005, and 0063 describe fluid injection means 10 as supplying fluid (e.g., water) under a pressure of 6-20 bar into capsule 2 via piercing means 24. Fluid injection means 10, supplying fluid under pressure, is understood to refer to a pump, or an equivalent structure for supplying fluid under pressure. Accordingly, the fluid injection means of the claim is understood to refer to a pump and piercing means that allows for the fluid to enter the capsule under pressure, or equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claims 33-40, 42-44 and 54-66 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The claim recites “means of supplying a fluid under pressure into the capsule” in the first three lines of the second paragraph. The claim also recites, in the preamble and first paragraph, “a fluid” and “fluid injection means for supplying fluid under pressure.” The “means of supplying a fluid under pressure into the capsule” should be “the fluid injection means for supply the fluid under pressure” to be consistent with terminology throughout the claim.
Additionally, claims 33, 34, 57, 59, 60, 61, and 64 recite the term “if.” It is understood, for the purposes of examination, that these claims recite contingent limitations that occur when some condition is present. However, the term “if” could also imply an optional limitation. To avoid such confusion, the Examiner recommends using the term “when” in lieu of “if” under the assumption that such limitations are, indeed, contingent limitations.
Claim 43 recites “from the first positon towards the second position” with the word “position” being misspelled. See first line, on page 7 of the claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer..
Claims 33-40, 42-44 and 54-66 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-27 of U.S. Patent No. 11866249 in view of Reinoso (WO2014001584) or Hanan (WO2013190426) [both supplied on the IDS dated 12/28/2022).
The below Table is provided to highlight the overlapping subject matter between independent claim 33 and independent claim 1 of the instant application and the ‘249 Patent, respectively.
Application 17993812
US Patent 11866249
33. System for preparing a potable beverage from a capsule using a fluid supplied under pressure into the capsule comprising:
1. A system for preparing a potable beverage from a capsule using a fluid supplied under pressure into the capsule comprising:
a beverage preparation device comprising an enclosing member for receiving the capsule, wherein the enclosing member comprises fluid injection means for supplying fluid under pressure into the capsule, wherein the beverage preparation device further comprises a closing member,
a beverage preparation device comprising an enclosing member for receiving the capsule, wherein the enclosing member comprises fluid injection means for supplying fluid under pressure into the capsule, wherein the beverage preparation device further comprises a closing member for closing the enclosing member of the beverage preparation device, wherein the enclosing member of the beverage preparation device further comprises an annular element having a central annular element axis and a free contact end
said free contact end of the annular element optionally being provided with a plurality of radially extending open grooves; and
the capsule containing a substance for the preparation of a potable beverage by extracting and/or dissolving the substance by means of supplying a fluid under pressure into the capsule,
said free contact end of the annular element optionally being provided with a plurality of radially extending open grooves
the capsule containing a substance for the preparation of a potable beverage by at least one of extracting and dissolving the substance by means of supplying a fluid under pressure into the capsule,
wherein the capsule comprises an aluminum capsule body having a central capsule body axis, said aluminum capsule body being provided with a capsule body bottom, a side wall and an outwardly extending flange comprising a curled outer edge, said outwardly extending flange extending transverse to the central capsule body axis, the capsule further comprising an aluminum cover attached to the outwardly extending flange, the cover hermetically closing the capsule,
wherein the capsule comprises an aluminum capsule body having a central capsule body axis, said aluminum capsule body being provided with a bottom, a side wall and an outwardly extending flange, the capsule further comprising an aluminum cover attached to the outwardly extending flange, the cover hermetically closing the capsule,
wherein the capsule further comprises a sealing member at the outwardly extending flange for providing a fluid sealing contact with the enclosing member of the beverage preparation device if the capsule is positioned in the enclosing member of the beverage preparation device and the enclosing member is closed by means of the closing member of the beverage preparation device,
wherein the capsule further comprises a sealing member at the outwardly extending flange for providing a fluid sealing contact with the enclosing member of the beverage preparation device if the capsule is positioned in the enclosing member of the beverage preparation device and the enclosing member is closed by means of the closing member of the beverage preparation device such that the outwardly extending flange of the capsule and at least a portion of the sealing member of the capsule are sealingly engaged between the enclosing member and the closing member of the beverage preparation device
wherein the enclosing member of the beverage preparation device comprises an annular element having a central annular element axis and a free contact end, said free contact end of the annular element optionally being provided with a plurality of radially extending open grooves,
See above
wherein the sealing member is integral with the outwardly extending flange and comprises a single annular projection comprising a projection top projecting axially towards the capsule body bottom from an inner foot portion radially outside of a flat inner flange portion extending between the capsule body side wall and the projection and an outer foot portion radially inside of a flat outer flange portion extending between the projection and the curled outer edge, and
wherein the sealing member is integral with the outwardly extending flange and comprises an annular projection comprising a projection top projecting axially towards the capsule body bottom from an inner projection foot radially outside of an inner flange portion and an outer projection foot radially inside of an outer flange portion…
wherein: the flat outer flange portion is axially spaced from the flat inner flange portion towards the bottom of the capsule body; or the flat outer flange portion and the flat inner flange portion are in line and wherein a radially outer wall of said projection is oriented transverse to the flat outer flange portion.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant independent claim is obvious over the ‘249 Patented claims. Claim 1 of the ‘249 Patent does not include the curled outer flange of the capsule or the limitation of wherein the flat outer flange portion is axially spaced from the flat inner flange portion towards the bottom of the capsule body or the flat outer flange portion and the flat inner flange portion are in line and wherein a radially outer wall of said projection is oriented transverse to the flat outer flange portion as required by independent claim 33 of the instant application.
However, dependent claims 15 and 16 both recited that the outwardly extending flange of the capsule is curled.
Reinoso teaches a beverage capsule
Hannan teaches a coffee capsule (10) wherein the flat outer flange portion (43) is axially spaced from the flat inner flange portion (Figures 2A/2B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the ‘249 Patent with Reinoso or Hanna, by modifying the position of the sealing member projection, relative to the outward extending flange of the capsule to have the flat outer flange portion be axially spaced from the flat inner flange portion towards the bottom of the capsule body or the flat outer flange portion and the flat inner flange portion be in line and wherein a radially outer wall of said projection is oriented transverse to the flat outer flange portion as taught by Reinoso and Hanna, for in doing so would improve the seal between the outwardly extending flange of the capsule and the free contact end of the annular member.
The remaining dependent claims of the instant application are similarly obvious in view of dependent claims 3-27 of the ‘249 Patent.
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 33-40, 42-44 and 54-66 are 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 33 recites “a closing member, such as an extraction plate” in the first and second paragraphs. The use of “such as” creates confusion as it is not reasonably clear if what follows is merely a preference, and therefore optional, or if it is intended as a narrower limitation. The Examiner recommends amending the claim language to remove such limitation or rewrite the limitation to “a closing member comprising an extraction plate” in order to clearly set forth the intended scope of the claim.
Claim 33 recites “the enclosing member of the beverage preparation device comprises an annular element having a central annular element axis and a free contact end, said free contact end of the annular element optionally being provided with a plurality of radially extending open grooves” in both first and second paragraphs. This creates confusion as to whether the second instance of the limitation is merely redundant or if the enclosing member is intended to have duplicate elements.
Claim 34 recites “wherein said radially extending open grooves are deeper in an inner surface portion than in said outer surface portion or said radially extending open grooves are absent in said outer surface portion” which renders the claim indefinite as the open grooves are claimed in claim 33 as optional limitations and claim 34 does not explicitly state that this optional limitation is a required limitation. The claim could properly be understood to include such open grooves. The claim can also be properly understood in situations in which the open grooves remain optional. As such, it is not clear if the aforementioned limitation is required or optional.
Claim 36 recites “the radially inner wall of said projection” renders the claim indefinite as “the radially inner wall” lacks proper antecedent basis and it is unclear what wall is being referenced. Claim 33, from which claim 36 ultimately depends, recites the projection including an inner and outer foot portion that are positioned radially relative to inner and outer flange portions. It is not clear if the claimed inner wall is referring to the foot portions or to something else.
Claim 37 recites “the or each bridge constituting….” This appears to be a typographical error. However, such error creates confusion as to whether the use of “or” is the error or not. As such, it is not clear if what follows the “or” is a required limitation or an optional alternative.
Claim 38 uses the term “preferably” which creates confusion as to whether what follows is an optional limitation or a required range.
Claim 39 recites “a free end of the enclosing member” that exerts a force on the sealing member. It is unclear if the “free end” of the enclosing member” is the same free end of the annular element. Claim 33 sets forth that the enclosing member comprises the annular element having a free contact end. As such, it is unclear if the free end in claim 39 refers to the free contact end of the annular element of the enclosing member or if the enclosing member as a distinct free end.
Claim 39 uses the term “preferably” which creates confusion as to whether what follows is an optional limitation or a required range.
Claim 40 recites “a free end of the enclosing member” that exerts a force on the sealing member. It is unclear if the “free end” of the enclosing member” is the same free end of the annular element. Claim 33 sets forth that the enclosing member comprises the annular element having a free contact end. As such, it is unclear if the free end in claim 40 refers to the free contact end of the annular element of the enclosing member or if the enclosing member as a distinct free end.
Claim 40 uses the term “preferably” and “more preferably” which creates confusion as to whether what follows is an optional limitation or a required range.
Claim 42 recites “a free contact end of the annular element.” It is unclear if the “free contact end” is the same free end of the annular element recited in claim 33. The Examiner recommends amending the claim language to recite “the free contact end of the annular element” under the assumption that there is one free contact end.
Claim 42 uses the term “preferably,” “more preferably,” and “most preferred” which creates confusion as to whether what follows is an optional limitation or a required range.
Claim 43 recites “a free end of the enclosing member” that exerts a force on the sealing member. It is unclear if the “free end” of the enclosing member” is the same free end of the annular element. Claim 33 sets forth that the enclosing member comprises the annular element having a free contact end. As such, it is unclear if the free end in claim 43 refers to the free contact end of the annular element of the enclosing member or if the enclosing member as a distinct free end.
Claim 43 uses the term “preferably” and “more preferably” which creates confusion as to whether what follows is an optional limitation or a required range.
Claim 43 recites “the maximum force” which renders the claim indefinite as such term lacks proper antecedent basis. Additionally, the claim also recites several ranges for the applied force F1. Claim 43 depends directly from claim 39 that sets force several ranges for F2. It is not clear if the maximum force relates to the highest value of these ranges cumulatively (i.e., 1500 N), individually (i.e., highest value for one range in particular), or if the maximum force refers to the maximum force that can be applied (including values outside the claimed ranges).
Claim 44 recites “the free end of the enclosing member.” It is unclear if the “free end” of the enclosing member is the same free end of the annular element. Claim 33 sets forth that the enclosing member comprises the annular element having a free contact end. As such, it is unclear if the free end in claim 44 refers to the free contact end of the annular element or if the enclosing member as a distinct free end.
Claim 54 recites “the flat outer flange portion transition” which renders the claim indefinite as such term lacks proper antecedent basis and it is unclear what transition is being referenced. Specifically, it is unclear if “the flat outer flange portion” and “the flat outer flange portion transition” refer to the same thing.
Claim 56 uses the term “preferably” and “most preferably” which creates confusion as to whether what follows is an optional limitation or a required range.
Claim 60 recites “a free end of the annular element” which renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear if the annular element includes both a free contact end and a free end, or if the free end is intended to refer to the free contact end.
Claim 61 uses the term “preferably” and “most preferably” which creates confusion as to whether what follows is an optional limitation or a required range.
Claim 62 recites “the closing member…, such as an extraction plate.” The use of “such as” creates confusion as it is not reasonably clear if what follows is merely a preference, and therefore optional, or if it is intended as a narrower limitation. Additionally, it is unclear if this is the same extraction plate of claim 33 or an additional extraction plate.
Claim 63 uses the term “preferably, “most preferably,” and “more preferably” which creates confusion as to whether what follows is an optional limitation or a required range.
Claim 64 recites “the sealing structure” which renders the claim indefinite as such term lacks proper antecedent basis and it is unclear if the sealing structure is intended to refer to the sealing member of claim 33 or to a different structure.
Claim 65 recites “the sealing structure” which renders the claim indefinite as such term lacks proper antecedent basis and it is unclear if the sealing structure is intended to refer to the sealing member of claim 33 or to a different structure.
Claim 65 recites “the remainder of the capsule body” which renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear what remainder is being referenced. Claim 33 recites that the capsule comprises an aluminum capsule body and an aluminum cover. It is not clear what portion of the capsule body is intended to be made of the same material as the sealing structure. Additionally, it is not clear what “plate material” Applicant is referencing as no plate material has been recited.
Claim 66 uses the term “preferably” which creates confusion as to whether what follows is an optional limitation or a required range.
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) 33-38 and 55-66 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chapman et al. (US2016/0075506).
Regarding claim 33, Chapman teaches a system for preparing a potable beverage from a capsule using a fluid supplied under pressure into the capsule (see Abstract and para. 0001) comprising:
a beverage preparation device comprising an enclosing member (Fig. 15; enclosing member 2) for receiving the capsule (1), wherein the enclosing member (2) comprises fluid injection means for supplying fluid under pressure into the capsule (para. 0092 and 109, piercing means for piercing base of the capsule to permit liquid to enter. Para. 0110, pressurized liquid is flowed into capsule 1 in produce a beverage from interaction with the beverage ingredients. Para. 0092 discloses 9-14 bars of pressure), wherein the beverage preparation device further comprises a closing member (Fig. 15 and 16; 20), such as an extraction plate [interpreted as an optional limitation], for closing the enclosing member of the beverage preparation device (as shown in fig. 16), wherein the enclosing member (2) of the beverage preparation device further comprises an annular element (generally taken as rim 23) having a central annular element axis (defined as the central axis extending axially through the enclosing member) and a free contact end (the end of rim 23 that makes contact with the flange of the capsule when in the closed position with 20, as shown in Fig. 17),
said free contact end of the annular element optionally being provided with a plurality of radially extending open grooves [interpreted as an optional limitation]; and
the capsule containing a substance for the preparation of a potable beverage by extracting and/or dissolving the substance (para. 0067) by means of supplying a fluid under pressure into the capsule (as detailed above),
wherein the capsule comprises an aluminum capsule body (body 40; para. 0096 discloses aluminum or aluminum alloy) having a central capsule body axis (taken as the central axis extending axially through the center of the capsule), said aluminum capsule body being provided with a capsule body bottom (42), a side wall (43) and an outwardly extending flange (generally taken as the rim 47. More specifically the flange is taken as the portion of the rim that extends from the sidewall of the capsule body and to the curled end 48) comprising a curled outer edge (Fig. 14; 48), said outwardly extending flange extending transverse to the central capsule body axis (Fig. 13-18; The central capsule body axis is taken as the central axis extending axially through the center of the capsule, which, in the Figures, extends between the top and bottom of the paper. The flange, as shown in the , extends transversely, or perpendicularly, relative to this axis), the capsule further comprising an aluminum cover (41) (para. 0105 discloses aluminum, aluminum alloy or a laminate containing aluminum) attached to the outwardly extending flange (See Figures 13-18), the cover hermetically closing the capsule (para. 0104, 0120, and 0132 discloses sealing the lid 41 to the flange of the capsule),
wherein the capsule further comprises a sealing member (generally taken as annular trough 60) at the outwardly extending flange for providing a fluid sealing contact with the enclosing member of the beverage preparation device if the capsule is positioned in the enclosing member of the beverage preparation device and the enclosing member is closed by means of the closing member of the beverage preparation device (para. 0098; 60 is dimensioned to receive, partially or wholly, the leading edge 23 of the enclosing member on the movement of the enclosing member into the closed position. Para. 0035 states that the trough is adapted to form a sealing interface with the leading edge of the enclosing member. See also paragraph 0134), such as the extraction plate of the beverage preparation device [considered an optional limitation], such that the outwardly extending flange of the capsule and at least a portion of the sealing member of the capsule are sealingly engaged between the enclosing member and the closing member of the beverage preparation device (see Fig. 17 and para. 0134),
wherein the enclosing member of the beverage preparation device comprises an annular element having a central annular element axis and a free contact end, said free contact end of the annular element optionally being provided with a plurality of radially extending open grooves [considered a redundant limitation],
PNG
media_image1.png
468
604
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 14 of Chapman (annotated)
wherein the sealing member is integral with the outwardly extending flange (paras. 0044-0045, 0061, 0101, 0107 and Figures 13-18 and comprises a single annular projection comprising a projection top (apex 67) projecting axially towards the capsule body bottom (42) from an inner foot portion (as annotated above. The foot portion is taken as the curved portion connecting the projection to the flat portion 62) radially outside of a flat inner flange portion (64) extending between the capsule body side wall (43) and the projection and an outer foot portion (as annotated above. The outer foot portion is taken as the curved portion connecting the projection to the flat portion 72) radially inside of a flat outer flange portion (72) extending between the projection and the curled outer edge (48), and
wherein: the flat outer flange portion (72) is axially spaced from the flat inner flange portion (64) towards the bottom (42) of the capsule body (40); or the flat outer flange portion and the flat inner flange portion are in line and wherein a radially outer wall of said projection is oriented transverse to the flat outer flange portion [considered an alternative limitation given the term “or.” As such, only one of the limitations needs to be met by the prior art.].
Regarding claim 34, Chapman teaches the claimed invention, as applied in claim 33, including wherein said free contact end portion of the annular element has an outer circumferential surface portion contacting said projection (See Figure 18), if the capsule (1) is positioned in the enclosing member (2) and as the enclosing member is closed by means of the closing member (20), and wherein said radially extending open grooves are deeper in an inner surface portion than in said outer surface portion or said radially extending open grooves are absent in said outer surface portion [The claim 33 states that the open grooves are optional. As claim 34 does not specifically state that they are now required structures, the claim limitation is interpreted as an optional limitation].
Regarding claim 35, Chapman teaches the claimed invention, as applied in claim 33, including wherein the flat inner flange portion (64) has a radial width that is substantially larger than the radial thickness of said free contact end portion of the annular element, so that a clearance is left between said free contact end portion of the annular element and said side wall of said capsule body (See Figure 18, gap between the free contact end portion and capsule body 40. Additionally, the Figures shows portion 64 being significantly wider than radial thickness-the thickness left to right-of the free contact end portion, for instance 23a, 23b, or 23c).
Regarding claim 36, Chapman teaches the claimed invention, as applied in claim 35, including wherein the annular element is arranged for deformation of the radially inner wall of said projection (see deformation in Figure 18. See also paragraphs 0032-0034 and 0134).
Regarding claim 37, Chapman teaches the claimed invention, as applied in claim 60 [described below. The claims are presented herein in numerical order], including wherein the annular element has one or more bridges between outer and inner ridges (bridge 23c connecting outer ridge 23b and inner ridge 23a), the or each bridge constituting an interruption of an annular space between the outer and inner ridges (considered an alternative limitation as a result of the term “or’).
Regarding claim 38, Chapman teaches the claimed invention, as applied in claim 33, including wherein, in use, the maximum fluid pressure in the enclosing member of the beverage preparation device is in the range of 6-20 bar, preferably between 12 and 18 bar (para. 0092 discloses a pressure of up to 9 to 14 bar).
Regarding claim 44, Chapman teaches the claimed invention, as applied in claim 33, including wherein during use when the closing member (20) of the beverage preparation device closes the enclosing member (2) of the beverage preparation device the enclosing member (2) of the beverage preparation device can [No structure is claimed for causing the claimed movement. Accordingly, under broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim merely requires that the enclosing member to be capable of such movement. See MPEP 2112 and 2114] move relative to the closing member of the beverage preparation device (para. 0009) under the effect of the pressure of the fluid in the enclosing member of the beverage preparation device towards the closing member of the beverage preparation device for applying the maximum force between the flange of the capsule (1) and the free end of the enclosing member of the beverage preparation device (see Figs. 17-18, showing a closed state in which the sealing member on the flange deforms as a result on relative movement between enclosing member 2 and closing member 20).
Regarding claim 55, Chapman teaches the claimed invention, as applied in claim 33, including wherein the curled outer edge (48) axially extends at both sides of the flat outer flange portion (top and bottom sides of the flange, as shown in the figures).
Regarding claim 56, Chapman teaches the claimed invention, as applied in claim 33, including wherein a radially inner wall of said projection is oriented at an angle between 93° and 110°, preferably between 95° and 98°, and most preferably at an angle of 97° with regard to the flat inner flange portion (see para. 0128; outer wall 66 is the inner wall of the projection as it is the wall facing the sidewall of the capsule. In contrast, inner wall 65 referenced in Chapman refers to the wall of the capsule and not the projection).
Regarding claim 57, Chapman teaches the claimed invention, as applied in claim 33, including wherein the projection is configured such that its projection top (67) exerts an outward radial force on the free contact end (23c, for instance) of the annular element if the capsule (1) is positioned in the enclosing member (2) of the beverage preparation device and the enclosing member (20) is closed by means of the closing member of the beverage preparation device (Figs. 17-18) (see deformation in Figure 18. See also paragraphs 0032-0034 and 0134).
Regarding claim 58, Chapman teaches the claimed invention, as applied in claim 33, including wherein the cover (41) is attached (indirectly) to the flat outer flange portion (72).
Regarding claim 59, Chapman teaches the claimed invention, as applied in claim 33, including wherein the capsule comprises a bearing for the enclosing member if the capsule is positioned in the enclosing member and the enclosing member is closed by means of the closing member, said bearing being formed by at least the projection (the projection forms a bearing that contacts the free contact end during closing, as detailed above).
Regarding claim 60, Chapman teaches the claimed invention, as applied in claim 33, including wherein the projection is shaped to roll and buckle radially outwards if compressed in axial direction, while in contact with an outwardly facing surface of a free end of the annular element (see deformation in Figure 18. See also paragraphs 0032-0034 and 0134).
Regarding claim 61, Chapman teaches the claimed invention, as applied in claim 33, including wherein the thickness of the aluminum capsule body is between 20 to 200 micrometer, preferably between 80 and 110 micrometer, most preferably 90 micrometer or 100 micrometer (para. 0062 discloses the cup shaped body having a thickness in the range of 80 to 500 microns or 80-120 microns), such that it is deformed easily if the capsule is positioned in the enclosing member of the beverage preparation device and the enclosing member is closed by means of the closing member of the beverage preparation device [considered an intended result of the capsule body having the claimed thickness and being aluminum. Further, the projection described above is formed of the same material and deforms upon closure to form a seal. Accordingly, it is reasonable to conclude that the body itself is also easily deformable).
Regarding claim 62, Chapman teaches the claimed invention, as applied in claim 33, including wherein the aluminum cover is arranged to tear open on the closing member of the beverage preparation device, such as an extraction plate of the beverage preparation device under the influence of fluid pressure in the capsule (para. 0110, tearing of the lid 41 as a result of increased pressure and closure member 20).
Regarding claim 63, Chapman teaches the claimed invention, as applied in claim 33, including wherein the height of the sealing member portion to be contacted first by the free end of the enclosure member (taken as apex 67) when the enclosure member is closed is at least about 0.1 mm, more preferably at least 0.2 mm and most preferably at least 0.8 mm and at most 3 mm, more preferably at most 2 mm and most preferably at most 1.2 mm (para. 0100 discloses that apex 67 is 0.75-2..5 mm above floor 64).
Regarding claim 64, Chapman teaches the claimed invention, as applied in claim 33, including wherein the sealing structure is deformable such that said projection contacts at least a portion of the free contact end of the annular element in a fluid sealingly manner (see deformation in Figure 18. See also paragraphs 0032-0034 and 0134) if the free contact end of the annular element that is pressed against the sealing structure has a plurality of radially extending open grooves uniformly spaced relative to each other in circumferential sense of said free contact end of the annular element (considered an optional limitation given the use of “if”).
Regarding claim 65, Chapman teaches the claimed invention, as applied in claim 33, including wherein the sealing structure and the remainder of the capsule body are made of the same plate material (as described above the whole capsule body is aluminum and the sealing structure, being made from the flange of the capsule body, is similarly the same material).
PNG
media_image2.png
468
604
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 14 of Chapman (annotated)
Regarding claim 66, Chapman teaches substantially the claimed invention, as applied in claim 33, including wherein a transition from the projection to the flat outer flange portion (72) of the outwardly extending flange has an internal radius of less than 0.15 mm, preferably less than 0.12 mm (see above. The transition is straight wall having no radius.).
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) 39, 40, 42, and 43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chapman.
Regarding claim 39, Chapman teaches substantially the claimed invention, as applied in claim 33, including wherein the system is arranged such that, in use, during brewing, a free end (23) of the enclosing member (2) of the beverage preparation device exerts a force F2 on the sealing member of the capsule to provide a fluid sealing contact between the outwardly extending flange of the capsule and the enclosing member of the beverage preparation device (See Figs. 17-18).
Chapman does not explicitly disclose wherein F2 is in the range of 500-1500 N preferably in the range of 750-1250 N when the fluid pressure P2 in the enclosing member of the beverage preparation device outside the capsule is in the range of 6-20 bar, preferably between 12 and 18 bar.
However, it is noted that much of the claim centers of the manner in which the system is used, during brewing and recites contingent limitations. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur. The system claim interpretation differs from a method claim interpretation because the claimed structure must be present in the system regardless of whether the condition is met and the function is actually performed. See MPEP 2111.04-II. In this case, the system is being defined in the claim by the manner in which in operates as opposed to any specific structural or cooperative relationship. As no additional structure is required by the claim, the claim is understood to refer to the system having the necessary structure allowing the beverage system to perform the claimed functions. See MPEP 2112 and 2114.
Chapman does disclose applying a force of some value to the sealing member to cause deformation in order to ensure a seal between the enclosing member and the closure member (see para. 0034 and Figs. 17-18). Chapman also discloses supplying liquid to the capsule at a pressure of up to 9-14 bar (para. 0092). Chapman also discloses fluid pressure in the enclosing member outside the capsule being, necessarily, of some value (for instance, fluid pressure inside the enclosing member prior to entering the capsule).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Chapman, by replacing the applied force and pressure of Chapman, being inherently of some value, since the force and pressure is interpreted to be a result effective variable that would be optimized in order to achieve a recognized result. In this case the recognized result would be ensuring the sealing element is sufficiently deformed to form a seal, with respect to the applied force, and applying liquid to the capsule at a sufficient pressure to ensure such liquid enters the capsule, with respect to the applied pressure. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the applied force onto the sealing element causes the sealing element to deform (see para. 0034 of Chapman). Varying the force applied onto the sealing element would alter the deformation and, as a result, the sealing quality. Additionally, a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the liquid pressure being applied outside of the capsule influences the manner and rate at which the liquid enters and mixes with the ingredients within the capsule to form the beverage. With both parameters (force and pressure), the corresponding values applied during use would lead to a sufficient seal not being formed and liquid not entering the capsule or a sufficient seal being formed and liquid being able to enter the capsule. As such, selecting the specific values of these parameters refers to merely the optimum or workable ranges during use. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See MPEP 2144.05-ll-A and MPEP 2144.05-ll-B.
Regarding claim 40, Chapman teaches substantially the claimed invention, as applied in claim 33, including wherein the system is arranged such that, in use, prior to or at the start of brewing, a free end (23) of the enclosing member (2) of the beverage preparation device exerts a force F1 on the sealing member of the capsule to provide a fluid sealing contact between the outwardly extending flange of the capsule and the enclosing member of the beverage preparation device (See Figs. 17-18).
Chapman does not explicitly disclose wherein F1 is in the range of 30-150 N preferably in the range of 40-150 N, more preferably 50-100 N when the fluid pressure P1 in the enclosing member of the beverage preparation device outside the capsule is in the range of 0.1-4 bar, preferably between 0.1-1 bar.
However, it is noted that much of the claim centers of the manner in which the system is used, prior to or at the start of brewing, and recites contingent limitations. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur. The system claim interpretation differs from a method claim interpretation because the claimed structure must be present in the system regardless of whether the condition is met and the function is actually performed. See MPEP 2111.04-II. In this case, the system is being defined in the claim by the manner in which in operates as opposed to any specific structural or cooperative relationship. As no additional structure is required by the claim, the claim is understood to refer to the system having the necessary structure allowing the beverage system to perform the claimed functions. See MPEP 2112 and 2114.
Chapman does disclose applying an initial force of some value to the sealing member to cause deformation in order to ensure a seal between the enclosing member and the closure member (see para. 0034 and Figs. 17-18). Chapman also discloses supplying liquid to the capsule at a pressure of up to 9-14 bar (para. 0092). Chapman also discloses fluid pressure in the enclosing member outside the capsule being, necessarily, of some value (for instance, fluid pressure inside the enclosing member prior to entering the capsule) prior to or at the start of brewing (i.e., pressure does not increase instantaneously).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Chapman, by replacing the applied force and pressure of Chapman, being inherently of some value, since the force and pressure is interpreted to be a result effective variable that would be optimized in order to achieve a recognized result. In this case the recognized result would be ensuring the sealing element is sufficiently deformed to form a seal, with respec