DETAILED ACTION
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 16 March 2026 has been entered.
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 17 and 18 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.
Regarding claim 17, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 18 is rejected by virtue of its dependence on a rejected base claim.
Examiner's Remarks
It is noted that the claims extensively recite reference signs. While reference signs may be recited note, that the use of reference signs is considered to have no effect on the scope of the claims (MPEP § 608.01M).
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.
Claims 16 – 24 and 27 – 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hother et al. US 2013/0105340 in view of Do US 2015/0366395.
Regarding claim 16, Hother discloses an infusion container (10) capable of receiving a dried infusion substance for the preparation of an infusion beverage which container comprises a base part (bottom wall 50), a lid part (cover wall 40) and a wall part (30) connecting the base part and an inlet valve (20/100) which inlet valve is formed in the lid part (fig. 5). The inlet valve comprises a closure cap (100) and a valve body (20) and the closure cap and the valve body are connected to one another in a separable manner via a material thin point (breaking line 108) (paragraph [0049] – [0057] and fig. 5).
Claim 16 differs from Hother in the infusion container being expandable.
Do discloses an infusion container (10) capable of receiving a dried infusion substance (tea leaves) capable of preparing an infusion beverage (tea). The infusion container comprises a base part (30), a lid part (20), and a wall part (cup 40) connecting the base part and the lid part (paragraph [0041] and fig. 2B and 2C). Do further discloses the infusion container would be expandable and have a variable length (paragraph [0041] – [0042]). Do is providing an expandable infusion container with a wall having a variable length to provide a compact brewing device for enhanced portability and provide ease of preparation as well as to improve user control over the type and quantity of ingredients and other variables in accordance with a user’s preferences (paragraph [0023]). To therefore modify Hother and provide an infusion container with a wall having a variable length as taught by Do would have been an obvious matter of choice and/or design to the ordinarily skilled artisan.
Claim 16 now recites that the closure cap and the valve body of the inlet valve “is formed as an integral part of the lid part”. Once it was known to provide the infusion container of Hother in view of Do as set forth above the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed by Hother in view of Do would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice (MPEP § 2144.04 V.B.).
Regarding claim 17, Hother in view of Do discloses the closure cap (101,102) has a base body (102) and a wall (104) extending therefrom in the direction of the interior of the infusion container and the wall which runs around the base body (‘340, paragraph [0056] and fig. 3 and 5).
With respect to the remaining recitations beginning “such that by a relative movement of the closure cap towards the valve body, the material thin point is broken open and a filling opening is circumferentially formed along the material thin point.” these are seen to be recitations regarding the intended use of the infusion container.
In this regard applicant’s attention is invited to MPEP 2114 which states that “an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function”. That is to say, apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all the limitations of the claimed invention, and then further limitations merely state, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct structural definition of any of the claimed invention’s structural limitations, then any limitations regarding the intended use of the device are of no significance to claim construction. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim which Hother in view of Do obviously does. Further, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
It is The Office’s position that the further limitations do not state any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations and further that the purpose or intended use, i.e. “such that by a relative movement of the closure cap towards the valve body, the material thin point is broken open and a filling opening is circumferentially formed along the material thin point (13)”, recited in the present claims does not result in a structural difference between the presently claimed invention and the prior art, that is Hother in view of Do and further that the prior art structure, which is identical and/or obvious in view of the prior art to that set forth in the present claims is capable of performing the recited purpose or intended use.
Regarding claim 18, Hother in view of Do discloses the wall (104) is configured to be hollow-cylindrical and has a first end and a second end, wherein the first end adjoins the base body (102) and the second end adjoins the material thin point (breaking line 108) (‘340, paragraph [0057]).
Regarding claim 19, Hother in view of Do discloses the material thin point (108) is capable of being circumferential around the closure cap (wall 20 forms a component of the outer wall, that is, the cover wall 40) (‘340, paragraph [0064]).
Regarding claim 20, Hother in view of Do discloses the material thin point would be a tear off film (breaking line 108 . . . tearing off takes place) (‘340, paragraph [0070]).
Regarding claim 21, Hother in view of Do discloses the valve body has a valve base (19) (fig. 3 and 5) which is seen to extend from an outer perimeter to an inner perimeter, which is to say that said base extends radially towards a center and adjoins the material thing point (108) (‘340, paragraph [0057]).
Regarding claim 22, Hother in view of Do discloses a wall (13,20) extends from the valve inlet which wall runs around the valve base and a step is formed and the inlet is arranged to form a step (sloped area seen above connection element 140) (‘340 fig. 5).
Regarding claim 23, Hother in view of Do discloses the wall surrounds a hollow, is cylindrical, and has a first end and a second end with the first end adjoining the valve base and the second end adjoins a base body (102) extending radially outwards therefrom (‘340, fig. 5).
Regarding claim 24, Hother in view of Do discloses a support element (element 100) is formed on the base body (102) (‘340, paragraph [0056] and fig. 5).
Regarding claim 27, Hother in view of Do disclose there would be a support for abutment of the closure cap arranged on the base part (column 122, element 100, 110) (‘340, [paragraph [0066] and fig. 5).
Regarding claim 28, Hother in view of Do disclose the support would be arranged on a dispensing opening (56) (‘340, paragraph [0063]) and capable of acting as a filter (‘395, paragraph [0022]).
Regarding claim 29, Hother in view of Do disclose the support comprises a guide element (element 100) capable of guiding the closure cap (‘340, paragraph [0056]).
Regarding claim 30, Hother in view of Do disclose the valve body (20) adjoins the wall part (cover wall 40) (‘340, paragraph [0054]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 16 March 2026 have been fully and carefully considered but they are not found persuasive.
Applicant urges with respect to the container of Hother the rejections have been made over elements as shown in figure 3 and figure 5 where each of the figures depicts a different embodiment and therefore the rejection fails to provide a proper assessment of novelty. This urging is not deemed persuasive.
First the rejections have been made under 35 U.S.C 103 and not under 35 U.S.C. 102 and therefore an obviousness rejection has ensued and not a novelty, i.e., an anticipatory rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 as applicant asserts. Further, the claims are directed to a closure cap and valve body which, with respect to the limitations recited in the claims, Hother discloses a closure cap and valve as containing the same basic elements and reference signs in each of the embodiments cited by the applicant. The ordinarily skilled artisan does not live in a vacuum and each reference is good for all that is taught in light of the teachings of the prior art and of the particular application disclosure as it would be interpreted by one possessing the ordinary level of skill in the pertinent art which is to say that the ordinarily skilled artisan would obviously think to combine the various facets of the embodiments taught in a single document.
Applicant urges that the features of the embodiments of figure 1 – 3 and/or 5 could not be formed as a single piece and that the bottom wall of Hother is formed of a sealing foil. These urgings are not found persuasive. As set forth above in the rejections the making integral of the closure cap and valve body would have been an obvious engineering choice. Regarding applicant’s urging regarding the bottom of Hother being provided as a sealing foil, here applicant is urging limitations not found in the claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAIM A SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-7369. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 09:00-18:00.
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 please telephone the Examiner.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nikki Dees can be reached at (571) 270-3435. 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.
/C.S./
Chaim SmithExaminer, Art Unit 1791 25 June 2026
/VIREN A THAKUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights