DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the AIA first to file provisions. 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 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.
Application Status
This office action is in response to the submission filed 11/26/2025.
Claims 1-15 are currently pending and being examined.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer US 2021/0300002.
Regarding claim 1:
Meyer teaches an assembly (FIG. 1) comprising
a capsule (“Capsule”; [0004]) intended to receive a substance for preparing a beverage, said capsule comprising a body having a side wall (“side wall”) bordered on either side by a bottom (“base”) and by a rim (“flange-like edge”) surrounding an opening of said body, said assembly comprising
a film lid ([0005]) intended to be associated with the rim in order to cover the opening after loading the substance in the capsule, the film lid having at least one external layer (outer “Porous filter paper”; [0031] describes omission of inner-most filter layer of the three-layer embodiment shown in the figure) intended to be disposed opposite to the opening and an internal layer (“Gas-impermeable film”) intended to be disposed between the rim and the external layer, said layers being associated on each other, said assembly being characterized in that the layers are made of fibrous material (e.g., [0024], [0040]), each having an area density and an oxygen transmission rate (i.e., these are inherent properties of the layers), the oxygen transmission rate of the internal layer being lower than the oxygen transmission rate of the external layer (i.e., since it is described as the gas-impermeable, oxygen barrier; e.g., [0031], ).
Meyer does not explicitly disclose the area density of the external layer being lower than the area density of the internal layer.
However, because the outer layer is described as a porous filter paper with high air permeability (e.g., see [0032]-[0033]), it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, that the external layer should have an area density lower than the area density of the internal layer, the latter of which having much stricter gas barrier requirements that would lead to a larger area density.
Regarding claim 2:
Meyer teaches the assembly according to claim 1, as discussed above, the oxygen transmission rate of the internal layer being at most 5 cm^3/m^2*day*atm ([0019]), according to the ASTM D3985 standard to form a sealing layer (implied).
Regarding claim 3:
Meyer teaches the assembly according to claim 1, as discussed above, the internal layer having a water vapour transmission rate which is less than 5 g/m^2*24h ([0040]), measured according to the ASTM E96 standard (implied).
Regarding claim 4:
Meyer teaches the assembly according to claim 1, as discussed above, the external layer having an air permeability which is greater than 500 l/m^2*s ([0033]), according to the ISO 9237 standard to form a porous layer (implied; cf. [0042]).
Regarding claim 5:
Meyer teaches the assembly according to claim 1, as discussed above, but does not explicitly teach the area density of the internal layer being between 40 and 90 g/m^2.
However, given that Meyer discloses the area density of the more porous external layer being up to 30 g/m^2 ([0042]), it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to experiment with increased densities for the internal barrier layer, for example, in the range of 40 to 90 g/m^2, or even higher, in order to ensure the gas barrier properties of the internal layer.
Regarding claim 6:
Meyer teaches the assembly according to claim 1, as discussed above, the area density of the external layer is comprised being between 10 and 40 g/m^2 ([0042]).
Regarding claim 7:
Meyer teaches the assembly according to claim 1, as discussed above, wherein the thickness of the external layer is greater than the thickness of the internal layer (shown in FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 8:
Meyer teaches the assembly according to claim 1, as discussed above, wherein the thickness of the external layer is comprised between 60 and 100 μm (see FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 9:
Meyer teaches the assembly according to claim 1, as discussed above, wherein the thickness of the internal layer is comprised between 30 and 70 μm (see FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 10:
Meyer teaches the assembly according to claim 1, as discussed above, the film lid including a sealing layer on the rim, said sealing layer being associated on the internal layer opposite to the external layer (inner “Porous filter paper” in FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 11:
Meyer teaches the assembly according to claim 1, as discussed above, wherein at least one of the internal layer and the external layer is made from cellulosic fibres ([0039]-[0045]; fibers are implied).
Regarding claim 12:
Meyer teaches the assembly according to claim 11, as discussed above, wherein the external layer is based on a filter-type paper ([0032]-[0033]).
Regarding claim 13:
Meyer teaches the assembly according to claim 11, as discussed above, but does not teach wherein the internal layer is based on microfibrillated cellulose MFC.
However, Examiner takes official notice that microfibrillated cellulose MFC is old and well-known in the art of packaging materials for its increased strength and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the internal layer of Meyer by having it based on microfibrillated cellulose MFC for at least the purposes of such increased strength.
Regarding claim 14:
Meyer teaches the assembly according to claim 1, as discussed above, wherein the internal layer has been treated to improve its moisture resistance ([0040]-[0041]).
Regarding claim 15:
Meyer teaches the assembly according to claim 1, as discussed above, at least one of the body of the capsule and the film lid is biodegradable and/or compostable (e.g., [0015], [0008]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks have been carefully considered but are not persuasive for the following reasons.
Applicant’s main argument is that “the gas-impermeable layer [of Meyer] would be well understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art to not be fibrous”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The rejection points to paragraphs [0024] and [0040] of Meyer for teaching “the layers are made of fibrous material”. According to [0024], the filter paper plies may be fibrous, and according to [0040], “the gas-impermeable film preferably consists of [] cellulose acetate.” Examiner notes that cellulose acetate is a well-known fibrous material, used, for example, in cigarette filters and textiles. The rejection also notes Meyer’s contemplating the omission of the inner-most filter layer in [0031], which would leave a capsule having a film lid with at least one external layer intended to be disposed opposite to the opening and an internal layer intended to be disposed between the rim and the external layer, said layers being associated on each other, said assembly being characterised in that the layers are made of fibrous material, as required in claim 1.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARIUSH SEIF whose telephone number is (408) 918-7542. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:30 AM-6:00 PM PST.
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, ANNA KINSAUL can be reached on 571-270-1926. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DARIUSH SEIF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731