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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 19-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03/04/2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 05/11/2023 and 07/31/2023 were filed. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 26-29 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 26 recites the limitation “… and one between the central portion and the outer annular portion is a flexible film…” It is unclear what “one” is structurally. “One” is not defined in any of the previous claims. Examiner will interpret “one” to be a section where the central portion and the outer annular portion meet or an adhesive between the central portion and the outer annular portion.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 16-18, 21, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bisio et al (WO 2016193961) in view of Tedford et al (US 20120097602).
Regarding claim 16, Bisio discloses a capsule for making infusion or soluble beverages, comprising:
a cup (Fig. 4 #2 cup) in which an inner volume is defined, at least one substance (Fig. 4 #11 substance) to be infused or dissolved being contained in the inner volume; said cup (Fig. 4 #2 cup) being provided:
on one side, with a bottom (Fig. 4 #3 bottom) having an outlet opening (Fig. 4 #31 exit opening) for a beverage,
on an opposite side, with an inlet opening (Fig. 2 #21 entrance opening) for a fluid;
internally, with an inner base (Fig. 4 #33 internal base) comprising:
a central portion (Fig. 4 #310 central portion) covering the outlet opening (Fig. 4 #31 exit opening), a labyrinth portion (Fig. 4 #320 labyrinth portion) arranged about the central portion(Fig. 4 #310 central portion), a perimeter edge (Fig. 4 #360 outer edge) arranged about the central portion (Fig. 4 #310 central portion), a beverage collection depression (Fig. 5 #330 depression) arranged between the perimeter edge (Fig. 4 #360 outer edge) and the labyrinth portion (Fig. 5 #30 labyrinth);
a beverage conveying depression (Shown in the figure below) arranged between the labyrinth portion (Fig. 5 #30 labyrinth) and the central portion (Fig. 4 #310 central portion);
a cover (Fig. 4 #6 cover) sealingly fastened to the cup (Fig. 4 #2 cup) to close the inlet opening (Fig. 2 #21 entrance opening);
and an at least partially flexible sealing disc (Fig. 4 #5 disc) fastened on the inner base (Fig. 4 #33 internal base) of the cup (Fig. 4 #2 cup) to ensure, together with the cover (Fig. 4 #6 cover), a seal of the inner volume ([0038] ---"The capsule 1 is internally provided with a sealing disc 5 placed in correspondence of the base 33 and suitable to seal the cup 2 inferiorly. The capsule 1 is thus provided with a closed chamber 12, defined by the cover 6 on the top and by the disc 5 on the bottom, inside which is contained the substance 11 to be infused or dissolved. The presence of a hermetically closed chamber 12 is important for the good maintenance and preservation of the substance 11.”);
wherein opening of the capsule for an outflow of the beverage is determined by an at least partial deformation of the sealing disc (Fig. 4 #5 disc), the least partial deformation causing loss of the seal of the inner volume ([0055] ---"The deformation of the disc 5, and in particular the crease 52, determines a separation of the disc 5 from the base 33, at least in correspondence of the edge 360, such as to allow the opening of a passage P for the outflow of the infused liquid.”).
PNG
media_image1.png
370
581
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Bisio does not disclose wherein the cup, the cover, and the sealing disc are made of a compostable material, and wherein the cup, the sealing disc and the cover comprise at least one of polylactic acid (PLA), polybutylene succinate (PBS), polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA).
Nonetheless, Tedford in the same field of endeavor being beverage brewing cartridges teaches wherein the cup, the cover, and the sealing disc are made of a compostable material, and wherein the cup, the sealing disc and the cover comprise at least one of polylactic acid (PLA), polybutylene succinate (PBS), polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA) (Abstract ---" A biodegradable beverage filter cartridge having: a biodegradable fluid permeable beverage filter component; an openable lid component of biodegradable and/or recyclable material; and a beverage receptacle component composed of an exterior biodegradable heat-resistant structural polymer layer, an inner protective seal layer of biodegradable polymer…” and [0033] lines 5-11 ---" Biodegradable polymers may include one or more of the following: one or more of: polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHAs), including polylactic acid or polylactide (PLA), as well as co-polymers of PLA and PHAs other than PLA; starch-based polymers; cellulose-based polymers; ethylene vinyl alcohol (EVOH) polymers; other biodegradable polymers such as polybutanediolsuccinic acid (PBS); etc.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the capsule of Bisio by forming the cup, cover, and lid from at least one of polylactic acid (PLA), polybutylene succinate (PBS), polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA) as taught by Tedford for the benefit of forming a biodegradable beverage filter cartridge.
Regarding claim 17, Bisio in view of Tedford teaches the capsule as appears above (see the rejection of claim 16), but does not teach wherein the cup is made of a compostable material having at least one of the following features: tensile yield strength between 30 and 50 MPa (ASTM Standard D638) or between 35 and 50 MPa (ISO 527-1); tensile elongation at break greater than or equal to 10% (ASTM Standard D638) or from 10% to 35% (ISO 527-1); bending elastic modulus between 2000 and 2500 MPa (ASTM D790) or between 2000 and 4500 MPa (ISO 527-1).
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the capsule of Bisio in view of Tedford by incorporating the tensile yield strength, tensile elongation, and bending elastic modulus as claimed, since it has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. MPEP 2112.01 I.
Regarding claim 18, Bisio in view of Tedford teaches the capsule as appears above (see the rejection of claim 16), and Tedford teaches wherein the cup is made of a compostable material comprising polylactic acid (PLA) ([0033] lines 5-11 ---" Biodegradable polymers may include one or more of the following: one or more of: polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHAs), including polylactic acid or polylactide (PLA), as well as co-polymers of PLA and PHAs other than PLA; starch-based polymers; cellulose-based polymers; ethylene vinyl alcohol (EVOH) polymers; other biodegradable polymers such as polybutanediolsuccinic acid (PBS); etc.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the capsule of Bisio in view of Tedford by making the cup from polylactic acid (PLA) as taught by Tedford for the benefit of forming a biodegradable beverage cup.
However, Bisio in view of Tedford does not teach the cup having at least two of the following features: tensile yield strength between 30 and 40 MPa (ASTM Standard D638); tensile elongation at break greater than or equal to 10% (ASTM Standard D638); bending elastic modulus between 2000 and 2500 MPa (ASTM D790).
Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the capsule of Bisio in view of Tedford by incorporating the tensile yield strength, tensile elongation, and bending elastic modulus as claimed, since it has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. MPEP 2112.01 I.
Regarding claim 21, Bisio in view of Tedford teaches the capsule as appears above (see the rejection of claim 16), but does not teach wherein the compostable material of the sealing disc has: breaking load (ISO Standard 527 1-3) MD between 85 and 95 MPa, TD between 35 and 45 MPa; and/or elongation at break (ISO Standard 527 1-3) MD between 10 and 20%, TD between 40 and 50.
Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the capsule of Bisio in view of Tedford by incorporating breaking load of bending elastic modulus as claimed, since it has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. MPEP 2112.01 I.
Regarding claim 23, Bisio in view of Tedford teaches the capsule as appears above (see the rejection of claim 16), and Tedford teaches wherein the sealing disc is at least partially rigid (Since the sealing disc is made from the same material as the cup, it follows that the sealing disc with exhibit at least partially rigidity.) and made of a same material as the cup (Abstract ---" A biodegradable beverage filter cartridge having: a biodegradable fluid permeable beverage filter component; an openable lid component of biodegradable and/or recyclable material; and a beverage receptacle component composed of an exterior biodegradable heat-resistant structural polymer layer, an inner protective seal layer of biodegradable polymer…” and [0033] lines 5-11 ---" Biodegradable polymers may include one or more of the following: one or more of: polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHAs), including polylactic acid or polylactide (PLA), as well as co-polymers of PLA and PHAs other than PLA; starch-based polymers; cellulose-based polymers; ethylene vinyl alcohol (EVOH) polymers; other biodegradable polymers such as polybutanediolsuccinic acid (PBS); etc.”)..
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the capsule of Bisio in view of Tedford by forming the cup and sealing disc from the same material as taught by Tedford for the benefit of forming a biodegradable beverage filter cartridge.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bisio et al (WO 2016193961) in view of Tedford et al (US 20120097602) as applied to claim 16, further in view of Bosetti et al (US 20200087056).
Regarding claim 22, Bisio in view of Tedford teaches the capsule as appears above (see the rejection of claim 16), but does not teach wherein the sealing disc is at least partially multilayer having an intermediate barrier layer of metallized cellulose or metallized cellophane and/or an upper outer layer made of paper or cellophane.
Nonetheless, Bosetti in the same field of endeavor being compostable beverage cartridges teaches wherein the sealing disc (Fig. 3 #10 compostable multilayer membrane) is at least partially multilayer having an intermediate barrier layer of metallized cellulose or metallized cellophane and/or an upper outer layer (Fig. 3 # 11 compostable barrier film) made of paper or cellophane ([0053] ---" The preferred compostable oriented film is cellophane, which advantageously exhibit compostabiity and oxygen-resistance properties.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sealing disc of Bisio in view of Tedford by incorporating the upper outer layer made of cellophane as taught by Bosetti for the benefit of exhibiting compostabiity and oxygen-resistance properties.
Claim(s) 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bisio et al (WO 2016193961) in view of Tedford et al (US 20120097602) as applied to claim 16, further in view of Macchi et al (HU E032014 T2).
Regarding claim 24, Bisio in view of Tedford teaches the capsule as appears above (see the rejection of claim 16), but does not teach wherein the bottom of the cup is externally reinforced by outer reinforcement fins arranged radially and at the labyrinth portion, said outer reinforcement fins being present in a number greater than 15.
Nonetheless, Macchi in the same field of endeavor being beverage brewing cartridges teaches wherein the bottom of the cup is externally reinforced by outer reinforcement fins (Fig. 5 #24 ribs) arranged radially and at the labyrinth portion, said outer reinforcement fins being present in a number greater than 15 (Fig. 5 shows 16 ribs.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the capsule of Bisio in view of Tedford by incorporating the ribs as taught by Macchi for the benefit of providing a resting surface for filter material as not obstruct the central portion. (Macchi [0037])
Regarding claim 25, Bisio in view of Tedford teaches the capsule as appears above (see the rejection of claim 16), but does not teach wherein the bottom of the cup is externally reinforced by central reinforcements, arranged radially and at the central portion.
Nonetheless, Macchi teaches wherein the bottom of the cup is externally reinforced by central reinforcements (Fig. 5 #27 reinforcing ribs of a central area), arranged radially and at the central portion (Shown in figure 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the capsule of Bisio in view of Tedford by incorporating the central reinforcement ribs as taught by Macchi for the benefit of stiffening the central portion . (Macchi [0027])
Claim(s) 26-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bisio et al (WO 2016193961) in view of Tedford et al (US 20120097602) as applied to claim 16, further in view of Bisio et al (CN 109689532 A) (hereinafter known as Bisio ‘532).
Regarding claim 26, Bisio in view of Tedford teaches the capsule as appears above (see the rejection of claim 16), but does not teach wherein the sealing disc is composed of a central portion permanently fastened to the labyrinth portion, and an outer annular portion permanently fastened to the perimeter edge, wherein the central portion and the outer annular portion are fastened to each other in an at least partially releasable manner, and one between the central portion and the outer annular portion is a flexible film, and wherein due to an increase in pressure a flexible portion of the sealing disc separates at least partially from a rigid portion of the sealing disc opening at least one passageway for the outflow of the beverage.
Nonetheless, Bisio ‘532 teaches wherein the sealing disc is composed of a central portion permanently fastened to the labyrinth portion (Abstract ---“…a closing plate (5) of the capsule, which is permanently fixed to inside floating convex part (320, 330, 340, 360)…), and an outer annular portion (Fig. 10a #51 external division) permanently fastened to the perimeter edge (Fig. 10a #360 edge),
wherein the central portion and the outer annular portion are fastened to each other in an at least partially releasable manner (Abstract ---“…the inside comprises a closing plate (5) of the capsule, which is permanently fixed to inside floating convex part (320, 330, 340, 360), and comprises at least two different parts (51, 52) connected together at least partially releasable way…”),
and one between the central portion and the outer annular portion is a flexible film, and wherein due to an increase in pressure a flexible portion of the sealing disc separates at least partially from a rigid portion of the sealing disc opening at least one passageway for the outflow of the beverage (Page 4 para. 11 ---" In the overlapping area 53, two external sub 51 forming the sealing disc 5 and inside the 52 to at least partially release the way of connection, that is, by using the low adhesion or weak lacquer 89, or by low adhesion or weak adhesive. This paint 89 allows two outer part 51 and inside the 52 is added in the capsule 1 pressure so as to separate or separated.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the capsule of Bisio in view of Tedford by incorporating the central portion and the outer annular portion as taught by Bisio ‘532 for the benefit of obtaining uniform deformation of the sealing disc, so as to ensure the opening of the capsule.
Regarding claim 27, Bisio in view of Tedford and Bisio ‘532 teaches the capsule as appears above (see the rejection of claim 26), and Bisio ‘532 teaches wherein an edge of the flexible portion is fastened below an edge of the rigid portion (Shown in figure 10a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the capsule of Bisio in view of Tedford by incorporating the edge of the flexible portion fastened below the edge of the rigid portion as taught by Bisio ‘532 for the benefit of obtaining uniform deformation of the sealing disc, so as to ensure the opening of the capsule.
Regarding claim 28, Bisio in view of Tedford and Bisio ‘532 teaches the capsule as appears above (see the rejection of claim 26), and Bisio ‘532 teaches wherein the central portion (Fig. 10a #52 internal division) of the sealing disc, intended to cover the labyrinth portion, is a rigid disc (Page 5 para. 6 ---" Preferably, the disk 5 is durable aluminium film, i.e., adapted to the increased pressure and deformation in the capsule 1, but will not damage or tearing.” Fig. 10b shows a portion of the internal division being rigid, not bending under pressure during usage.)
and the outer annular portion (Fig. 10a #51 external division) is a flexible film (Page 5 para. 6 ---" Preferably, the plate 5 is made of aluminum or plastic/aluminium composite material or plastic material film is made of a single layer or multiple layers.” Fig. 10b shows a portion of the external division being flexible, bending under pressure during usage.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the capsule of Bisio in view of Tedford by incorporating the central portion and the outer annular portion of the sealing disc as taught by Bisio ‘532 for the benefit of obtaining uniform deformation of the sealing disc, so as to ensure the opening of the capsule.
Regarding claim 29, Bisio in view of Tedford and Bisio ‘532 teaches the capsule as appears above (see the rejection of claim 26), and Bisio ‘532 teaches wherein the central portion of the sealing disc, intended to cover the labyrinth portion, is a flexible film (Page 5 para. 6 ---" Preferably, the plate 5 is made of aluminum or plastic/aluminium composite material or plastic material film is made of a single layer or multiple layers.”) and the outer annular portion is rigid (Page 5 para. 6 ---" Preferably, the disk 5 is durable aluminium film, i.e., adapted to the increased pressure and deformation in the capsule 1, but will not damage or tearing.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the capsule of Bisio in view of Tedford by incorporating the central portion and the outer annular portion of the sealing disc as taught by Bisio ‘532 for the benefit of obtaining uniform deformation of the sealing disc, so as to ensure the opening of the capsule.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOE E MILLS JR. whose telephone number is (571)272-8449. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571) 270-5569. 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.
/JOE E MILLS JR./Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights