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 .
Summary
This communication is a First Office Action Non-Final Rejection on the merits.
Claim(s) 1-13 is/are currently pending and considered below.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1, 5 and 7 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 17, “characterised” should read --characterized--
Claim 5, line 1, “he method” should read --The method--
Claim 7, line 21, “filter or infusion” should read --filter for infusion--
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 7-13 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the piece" in line 13, followed by “the piece of filter material” in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, the first introduction of “the piece” is understood to be “a piece of filter material”.
Regarding claim 9, introduction of “said preliminary cutting line of the additional cutting device preferably having a substantially circular shape” renders the claim indefinite because examples and preferences lead to confusion over the intended scope of the claim, making it unclear whether the claimed narrower range is a limitation. See MPEP 2173.05(d) Exemplary Claim Language (“for example,” “such as”). For the purposes of examination, the limitation is interpreted as an intended limitation.
All dependent claims of the above claims inherit all of the limitations and thus are likewise rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are objected due to informalities, but would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the objections.
Claim(s) 7-13 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The claims in this application have been allowed because the prior art of record fails to disclose or make obvious the claimed invention including the following features:
Claim 1, “after the step of making the main cut, actuating a second step of feeding, using the pushing element, the filter towards said housing seat, from the first position to a desire final position, suitable for fixing said filer to an inner surface of said rigid cup-shaped body; then
fixing a perimeter portion of the filter to said inner surface of the rigid cup-shaped body;
wherein said first and/or second feeding step are performed in an adjustable way in such a way as to vary, respectively, a position of said filter relative to the main closed cutting line and/or to said desired final position.”
Claim 7, “a control unit configured to actuate said main cutting device when the pushing element is in said intermediate position, in such a way that the cut on the piece of filter material occurs when the pushing element is at said intermediate position, said control unit also controlling the pushing element for actuating it in such a way as to vary, respectively, a position of said filter relative to said main closed cutting line and/or to the advanced position.”
Regarding claim 1, the closest prior art of record, Rea to WO 2013/189555 A1, discloses method for making single-use beverage capsules, said capsules having a rigid cup-shaped body (2) equipped with a closed base (3) and an upper opening (4), and a filter (8) having a concave shape and positioned inside the rigid body to form a chamber for containing a dose of product (D), said method comprising the following steps:
providing an upper flange (top surface of 9) having at least one hole (opening of 9);
providing a support (9) having at least one housing seat (inside of 9) for housing said rigid cup-shaped body, said support being positioned under the upper flange with the housing seat aligned with the hole (Figs. 1-7);
inserting the rigid cup-shaped body into said housing seat with the upper opening close to the support (Fig. 4);
providing a piece of filter material above the upper flange (Fig. 5);
actuating a first step of feeding, using a pushing element, a central portion of said piece of filter material towards said hole, up to a first position (Fig. 4);
upon reaching said first position of the pushing element, a main locking of said piece of filter material (S1) relative to said upper flange is performed (Fig. 2).
However, Rea fails to disclose or fairly suggest the remaining of the claimed limitations.
Claim 7 is allowable for essentially the same reasons as claim 1 above.
The combination of the claimed limitations are novel and found to be allowable over the prior art. The cited references taken singly or in combination do not anticipate or make obvious the Applicant's claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (See PTO-892 Notice of References Cited).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Himchan Song whose telephone number is (571)272-4142. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9:00 a.m. - 4:30 p.m.
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 at (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 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.
/HIMCHAN SONG/Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights