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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 claim amendment submission filed on July 8, 2026 and subsequent Request for Continued Examination filed August 3, 2026 have 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 4 and 16 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 4 recites the limitation “wherein the second laminate structure further comprises a filter layer” in lines 1-2. Claim 1, lines 26-28 already recites the limitation “wherein the second laminate structure comprises an interface layer adjacent to the first laminate structure, a paper material layer.” Malkin et al. US 2020/0214491 discloses it was known in the beverage container art (‘491, Paragraph [0001]) that a paper layer has filtering properties (‘491, Paragraph [0122]). Rondelli US 2019/0100376 also discloses it was known in the beverage container art that a paper layer has filtering properties (‘376, Paragraph [0031]). It is unclear if the filter layer of Claim 4 is separate and distinct from the paper material layer of Claim 1 or if these are the same layer structure.
Clarification is required.
Claim 16 is rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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, 5-6, 8, 10, 12, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cabilli et al. US 2019/0225412 in view of Andreae et al. US 2017/0008694, MacMahon et al. US 2009/0232944, Dhariwal et al. US 2019/0315096 Toft et al. US 2019/0202191, and Deeb et al. US 2014/0220192.
Regarding Claim 1, Cabilli et al. discloses a beverage container (cartridge 10) that is compostable (‘412, Paragraph [0043]). The beverage container (cartridge 10) comprises a container wall (body 14) that encloses a volume (‘412, Paragraph [0040]) wherein the container wall (body 14) is made of a wall material comprising at least one cutout opening (opening at flange 146) and a second laminate structure (bottom wall 142) that completely covers the at least one cutout opening (opening at flange 146) so that the second laminate structure (bottom wall 142) as the container wall (body 14) completely encloses the volume (‘412, FIGS. 1-2) (‘412, Paragraph [0063]).
PNG
media_image1.png
474
975
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Cabilli et al. is silent regarding the container wall being made of a wall material that comprises a first laminate structure in addition to the second laminate structure wherein the volume is enclosed by both the first laminate structure and the second laminate structure as the container wall.
Andreae et al. discloses a compostable beverage container (‘694, Paragraph [0004]). The beverage container comprises a container wall that encloses a volume wherein the container wall is made of a wall material comprising at least two different laminate structure of a first laminate structure (film/foil 18 composed of several layers of film/foil) (‘694, Paragraph [0060]) and a second laminate structure (housing 22 composed of a laminate of at least two material layers) (‘694, FIG. 6) (‘694, Paragraphs [0064]-[0065]).
Both Cabilli et al. and Andreae et al. are directed towards the same field of endeavor of compostable beverage capsules made of at least one laminate structure. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the compostable beverage capsule of Cabilli et al. and construct the container wall out of a first laminate structure in addition to the second laminate structure as taught by Andreae et al. since the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination in view of Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (MPEP § 2144.07). Andreae et al. teaches that there was known utility in the beverage capsule art to construct compostable beverage capsules with a container wall made out of a first laminate structure in addition to the second laminate structure.
Further regarding Claim 1, Cabilli et al. discloses the beverage container (cartridge 10) having different shapes (‘412, Paragraph [0049]). However, Cabilli et al. modified with Andreae et al. is silent regarding the shape of the beverage container being such that the first laminate structure comprising at least two separate elements that are circumferentially sealed to each other at a flange to enclose the volume wherein the at least two separate elements each comprises a circumferential edge section which are arranged to overlap to form the flange.
MacMahon et al. discloses a beverage container (pad 10) comprising a container wall that encloses a volume wherein the container wall is made of a wall material comprising a laminate structure wherein the laminate structure consists of at least two separate elements (upper sheet 11, lower sheet 12) that are circumferentially sealed to each other at a flange to enclose the volume wherein the at least two separate elements (upper sheet 11, lower sheet 12) each comprise a circumferential edge section (peripheral seam 15) which are arranged to overlap to form the flange (‘944, FIGS. 4-5) (‘944, Paragraphs [0002] and [0080]).
PNG
media_image2.png
348
975
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Both modified Cabilli et al. and MacMahon et al. are directed towards the same field of endeavor of beverage containers used with beverage machines to make a beverage. Cabilli et al. discloses the beverage container (cartridge 10) having different shapes (‘412, Paragraph [0049]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the shape of the beverage container of Cabilli et al. and construct the beverage container such that the container wall is made of a wall material comprising a laminate structure wherein the laminate structure comprises at least two separate elements that are circumferentially sealed to each other at a flange to enclose the volume wherein the at least two separate elements each comprise a circumferential edge section which are arranged to overlap to form the flange as taught by MacMahon et al. since the configuration of the claimed beverage container is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant in view of In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (MPEP § 2144.04.IV.B.). MacMahon et al. teaches that there was known utility in the beverage container art to construct a beverage container with the claimed shape.
Further regarding Claim 1, Andreae et al. discloses the two separate elements of the first laminate structure comprising at least a formable paper material layer (‘694, Paragraph [0026]) and a compostable film material layer as a moisture and/or an oxygen barrier (‘694, Paragraph [0060]) wherein the compostable film material layer is laminated or coextruded with the formable paper material layer (‘694, Paragraphs [0014]-[0015] and [0039]) wherein the compostable film material layer comprises a compostable bioplastic (‘694, Paragraph [0027]). Both Cabilli et al. and Andreae et al. are directed towards the same field of endeavor of compostable beverage capsules made of at least one laminate structure. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the compostable beverage capsule of Cabilli et al. and construct the first laminate structure with at least a formable paper material layer and a compostable film material layer as a moisture and/or an oxygen barrier wherein the compostable film material layer is laminated or coextruded with the formable paper material layer and the compostable film material layer comprises a compostable bioplastic as taught by Andreae et al. since the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination in view of Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (MPEP § 2144.07). Andreae et al. teaches that there was known utility in the beverage capsule art to construct the first laminate structure of the beverage container with the claimed materials.
Further regarding Claim 1, Cabilli et al. modified with Andreae et al. and MacMahon et al. is silent regarding the formable paper material layer having a grammage between 80 g/m2 to 150 g/m2.
Dhariwal et al. discloses a biodegradable and compostable polymeric film used in the food industry (‘096, Paragraph [0001]) used to make a co-extruded blown film having a paper layer laminated over an outer surface layer and a sealant product side layer wherein the paper layer has a thickness in the range of 10 gsm to 100 gsm (‘096, Paragraph [0076]), which overlaps the claimed formable paper material layer grammage range of between 80 g/m2 to 150 g/m2. Toft et al. discloses a laminated packaging material (‘191, Paragraph [0001]) for storing coffee or tea drinks (‘191, Paragraph [0024]) wherein the laminated packaging material has a high density paper facing layer having a grammage of from 20 to 100 g/m2 (‘191, Paragraph [0192]) wherein adhesive polymer layers or tie layers are applied together with the respective outer layer or further bulk to barrier bonding layers in a coextrusion coating operation (‘191, Paragraph [0102]), which also overlaps the claimed formable paper material layer grammage range of between 80 g/m2 to 150 g/m2.
Modified Cabilli et al., Dhariwal et al., and Toft et al. are all directed towards the same field of endeavor of laminated food and beverage materials containing a paper layer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the formable paper material layer of modified Cabilli et al. and construct the formable paper material layer with the claimed grammage range as taught by Dhariwal et al. and Toft et al. since where the claimed grammage range of the formable paper material layer of the food packaging laminate overlaps grammage range of the formable paper material layer of the food packaging laminate disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists in view of In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (MPEP § 2144.05.I.).
Further regarding Claim 1, Cabilli et al. modified with Andreae et al., MacMahon et al., Dhariwal et al., and Toft et al. is silent regarding the first laminate structure having an elongation at its breaking point of at least 2%.
Deeb et al. discloses a beverage container comprising a cover comprising a lamination of layers wherein the desired degree of puncture resistance and ability to seal and reseal are affected by adjusting the properties of the film (‘192, Paragraph [0044]).
Both modified Cabilli et al. and Deeb et al. are directed towards the same field of endeavor of beverage containers. Although Deeb et al. does not explicitly disclose the particular claimed values of the elongation at the breaking point of the first laminate structure, Deeb et al. discloses a lamination of layers wherein the desired degree of puncture resistance and ability to seal and reseal are affected by adjusting the properties of the film (‘192, Paragraph [0044]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the elongation at its breaking point of the first laminate structure that constitutes the capsule body relative to the puncture resistance of the bottom wall corresponding to the second laminate structure since differences in the value of the elongation at the breaking point of the first laminate structure with respect to the puncture resistance of the second laminate structure represented by the bottom wall will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such breaking point at elongation and puncture resistance are critical. Where 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 in view of In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP § 2144.05.II.A.). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would adjust the layer elongation at breaking point relative to the puncture resistance of the beverage container of modified Cabilli et al. based upon the desired degree of puncture resistance and ability to seal and reseal are affected by adjusting the properties of the film as taught by Deeb et al. (‘192, Paragraph [0044]).
Further regarding Claim 1, Cabilli et al. discloses the second laminate structure (bottom wall 142) comprising an interface layer (layer 1420 made of compostable polylactic acid) adjacent to the first laminate structure (at flange 146), a paper material layer (layer 1422 made of compostable paper), and an add on layer (barrier coating layer 1423) (‘412, FIGS. 1-4) (‘412, Paragraphs [0045], [0077], and [0101]). It is noted that the claim does not specify the particular material(s) of the interface layer and/or add on layer. It is also noted that applicant discloses the interface layer of the second laminate structure to be made of polylactic acid (Specification, Page 8, lines 5-10), which interface layer of layer 1420 of Cabilli et al. is also made. It is also noted that the claim does not specify which of the paper material layer or add on layer is adjacent to the interface layer of the second laminate structure. Any order of the paper material layer and/or add on layer relative to the interface layer reads on the claimed invention. Furthermore, in the event that the claims are amended to specify the particular layer between the paper material layer and the add on layer that is adjacent to the interface layer, a prior art reference disclosing a process of making a laminated sheet wherein a second laminate structure comprising an interface layer adjacent to a first laminate structure wherein the second laminate structure further comprises a paper material layer and an add on layer in any order is held to render prima facie obvious claims directed to a process of making a laminated sheet by reversing the order of the configuration of the paper material layer and/or add on layer relative to the interface layer in view of Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959) (MPEP § 2144.04.IV.C.).
Further regarding Claim 1, the limitations “for preparing a beverage in a beverage production machine,” “for containing a substance for the preparation of the beverage,” “which is configured to be formable,” and “which is configured to be openable upon interaction with opening elements of the beverage production machine under the effect of rising pressure of a fluid being injected into the beverage container” are seen to be recitations regarding the intended use of the “beverage container.” In this regard, applicant’s attention is invited to MPEP § 2114.I. and MPEP § 2114.II. which states features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally in view of In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997). If an examiner concludes that a functional limitation is an inherent characteristic of the prior art, then to establish a prima facie case of anticipation or obviousness, the examiner should explain that the prior art structure inherently possess the functionally defined limitations of the claimed apparatus in view of In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432. See also Bettcher Industries, Inc. v. Bunzl USA, Inc., 661 F.3d 629, 639-40,100 USPQ2d 1433, 1440 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The burden then shifts to applicant to establish that the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on in view of In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432; In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213, 169 USPQ 226, 228 (CCPA 1971). Additionally, apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does in view of Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). 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 claimed in view of Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Furthermore, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Nevertheless, Cabilli et al. discloses the beverage container being used in a beverage production machine for preparing a beverage (‘412, Paragraph [0015]) from a substance (ground coffee dose 12) for preparing the beverage (‘412, Paragraph [0037]) and the second laminate structure being capable of being opened under the effect of rising pressure of a fluid injected into the beverage container (‘412, Paragraph [0066]).
Regarding Claim 5, Deeb et al. discloses a beverage container comprising a cover comprising a lamination of layers wherein the desired degree of puncture resistance and ability to seal and reseal are affected by adjusting the properties of the film (‘192, Paragraph [0044]).
Both modified Cabilli et al. and Deeb et al. are directed towards the same field of endeavor of beverage containers. Although Deeb et al. does not explicitly disclose the particular claimed values of the puncture resistance of the second laminate structure, Deeb et al. discloses a lamination of layers wherein the desired degree of puncture resistance and ability to seal and reseal are affected by adjusting the properties of the film (‘192, Paragraph [0044]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the elongation at its breaking point of the first laminate structure that constitutes the capsule body relative to the puncture resistance of the bottom wall corresponding to the second laminate structure since differences in the value of the elongation at the breaking point of the first laminate structure with respect to the puncture resistance of the second laminate structure represented by the bottom wall will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such breaking point at elongation and puncture resistance are critical. Where 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 in view of In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP § 2144.05.II.A.). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would adjust the layer elongation at breaking point relative to the puncture resistance of the beverage container of modified Cabilli et al. based upon the desired degree of puncture resistance and ability to seal and reseal are affected by adjusting the properties of the film as taught by Deeb et al. (‘192, Paragraph [0044]).
Regarding Claim 6, Cabilli et al. discloses the second laminate structure (bottom wall 142) being connected to the at least one cutout formed by sidewall 140 and flange 146 (‘412, FIG. 1) (‘4412, Paragraph [0045]). Andreae et al. discloses the second laminate structure being formed from the sidewall and flange (‘694, FIG. 6). The combination of Cabilli et al. modified with Andreae et al. teaches the first laminate structure of the sidewall and flange being completely covered by the second laminate structure at the bottom of the capsule to cover the at least one cutout opening wherein the second laminate structure (bottom wall 142) is provided on a same side as the volume with respect to the first laminate structure (‘412, FIG. 1).
Regarding Claim 8, Cabilli et al. discloses the first laminate structure comprising one or more further cutout openings (opening at flange 144 that is closed by wall 16) that is covered completely by the lid (‘412, FIG. 1) (‘412, Paragraph [0044]). Andreae et al. discloses the lid having the laminate structure (‘694, Paragraph [0036]).
Further regarding Claim 8, the limitations “wherein the second laminate structure covering the one or more further cutout opening is configured to be opened by an injection element of the beverage production machine for injecting the fluid into the beverage container” are intended use limitations and as such are rejected for the same reasons regarding intended use enumerated in the rejections of Claim 1 provided above.
Regarding Claim 10, Cabilli et al. discloses the PLA layer having a thickness of between 10 and 200 microns (‘412, Paragraph [0090]). Andreae et al. discloses the compostable film layer comprising a layered structure comprising a moisture barrier layer (PLA layers 25, 26) (‘694, FIG. 6) (‘694, Paragraph [0064]). The disclosure of the PLA layer being between 10 and 200 microns thick overlaps the claimed moisture barrier layer thickness of between 10 micrometers to 40 micrometers. Where the claimed moisture barrier layer thickness ranges overlaps moisture barrier layer thicknesses disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists in view of In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (MPEP § 2144.05.I.). Andreae et al. also discloses the material layers being adhered to one another by means of a compostable adhesive (‘694, Paragraph [0023]) and a gas barrier layer (PVOH oxygen barrier layer) (‘694, Paragraph [0013]). Although Cabilli et al. modified with Andreae et al. does not explicitly disclose the adhesive layer having a thickness in the range between 1 micrometers to 10 micrometers or the gas barrier layer having a thickness in the range of between 1 micrometer to 20 micrometers, differences in the layer thickness of the adhesive layer and gas barrier layer will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such layer thickness of the adhesive layer and gas barrier layer is critical. Where 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 in view of In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP § 2144.05.II.A.). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would adjust the layer thickness of the adhesive layer and the gas barrier layer based upon the desired bonding strength between adjacent layers and based upon the desired oxygen barrier, respectively.
Regarding Claim 12, Cabilli et al. discloses the beverage container being in the form of a pod or a capsule (‘412, Paragraph [0033]).
Regarding Claim 17, Andreae et al. discloses an embodiment wherein the compostable film material layer comprising the gas barrier layer (material layer 27 that acts as an oxygen barrier) being sandwiched between two moisture barrier layers (PLA layers 25, 26) forming the top and the bottom of the compostable film material layer (‘694, FIG. 5) (‘694, Paragraph [0064]) and with two adhesive layers which are provided between each of the moisture barrier layers and the gas barrier layer, respectively (‘694, Paragraph [0023]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cabilli et al. US 2019/0225412 in view of Andreae et al. US 2017/0008694, MacMahon et al. US 2009/0232944, Dhariwal et al. US 2019/0315096, Toft et al. US 2019/0202191, and Deeb et al. US 2014/0220192 as applied to claim 3 above in further view of Reati US 2008/0299262.
Regarding Claim 4, Cabilli et al. modified with Andreae et al., MacMahon et al., Dhariwal et al., Toft et al., and Deeb et al. is silent regarding the second laminate structure further comprising a filter layer.
Reati discloses a beverage container comprising a container wall that encloses a volume wherein the container wall is made of a wall material comprising a filter layer (filtering permeable material 301) that completely covers at least one cutout opening (opening 111) (‘262, FIG. 1) (‘262, Paragraph [0040]).
Both modified Cabilli et al. and Reati are directed towards the same field of endeavor of beverage capsules comprising a container wall made of a wall material comprising at least one cutout opening covered by a structure. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the beverage capsule of modified Cabilli et al. and construct the second laminate structure with a filter layer since Reati teaches that it was known in the art beverage container art to cover at least one cutout opening of the beverage container with a filter layer.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cabilli et al. US 2019/0225412 in view of Andreae et al. US 2017/0008694, MacMahon et al. US 2009/0232944, Dhariwal et al. US 2019/0315096, Toft et al. US 2019/0202191, and Deeb et al. US 2014/0220192 as applied to claim 1 above in further view of Boyd et al. US 2002/0048621.
Regarding Claim 11, Cabilli et al. modified with Andreae et al., MacMahon et al., Dhariwal et al., Toft et al., and Deeb et al. is silent regarding the container wall comprising an identifier wherein the identifier comprises information relating to beverage preparation parameters.
Boyd et al. discloses a beverage container (packet 10) comprising a container wall (filter portions 12 and 14) that encloses a volume wherein the container wall (filter portions 12 and 14) comprises an identifier (machine interpretable feature 30) wherein the identifier (machine interpretable feature 30) comprises information relating to beverage preparation parameters (‘621, FIG. 2) (‘621, Paragraphs [0027]-[0028]).
PNG
media_image3.png
388
1157
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Both modified Cabilli et al. and Boyd et al. are directed towards the same field of endeavor of beverage containers used in a beverage production machine to prepare a beverage. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the beverage container of modified Cabilli et al. and incorporate an identifier onto the container wall of the beverage container as taught by Boyd et al. in order to add directions for making a particular coffee beverage (‘621, Paragraph [0032]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cabilli et al. US 2019/0225412 in view of Andreae et al. US 2017/0008694, MacMahon et al. US 2009/0232944, Dhariwal et al. US 2019/0315096, Toft et al. US 2019/0202191, Deeb et al. US 2014/0220192, and Reati US 2008/0299262 as applied to claim 4 above in further view of Johansson US 2015/0375484.
Regarding Claim 16, Cabilli et al. modified with Andreae et al., MacMahon et al., Dhariwal et al. Toft et al., Deeb et al., and Reati et al. is silent regarding the add on layer being provided opposite to the interface layer with respect to the paper material layer.
Johansson et al. discloses a beverage container made from a packaging laminate (‘484, Paragraphs [0021]-[0022]) wherein the packaging laminate comprises an interface layer (coating layer 14), a paper material layer (paper layer 12), and an add on layer (central layer 13a) wherein the add on layer (central layer 13a) is provided opposite to the interface layer (coating layer 14) with respect to the paper material layer (paper layer 12) (‘484, FIG. 1) (‘484, Paragraphs [0068] and [0070]). It is noted that the claims do not specify the material from which the interface layer and/or add on layer are made.
Both modified Cabilli et al. and Johansson et al. are directed towards the same field of endeavor of beverage containers made from a multilayered packaging laminate. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the configuration of the layers of the laminate of modified Cabilli et al. in which the paper material layer is an exterior layer of the laminate and construct the laminate such that the add on layer is provided opposite to the interface layer with respect to the paper material layer as taught by Johansson et al. since the configuration of the claimed add on layer and interface layer relative to the paper material layer is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant in view of In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (MPEP § 2144.04.IV.B.). The claims do not specify the particular materials from which the add on layer and/or interface layer are made. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify the laminate of modified Cabilli et al. and construct the paper material layer being disposed between a generic add on layer and a generic interface layer since Johansson et al. teaches that there was known utility in the beverage container art to construct a packaging laminate from which the beverage container is made to have a paper material layer being disposed between a generic add on layer and a generic interface layer.
Response to Arguments
Examiner notes that a new indefiniteness rejection under 35 USC 112(b) has been made.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the obviousness rejections of independent Claim 1 under 35 USC 103(a) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the previous interpretations applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Although Claim 1 has been rejected using the same art as previously relied upon in the Final Rejection mailed May 8, 2026, the current rejection relies upon a different interpretation on the layers disclosed by Cabilli et al. that reads on the claimed interface layer, paper material layer, and add on layer of the second laminate structure. This new interpretation of the various layers was necessitated by amendment.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERICSON M LACHICA whose telephone number is (571)270-0278. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-5pm, EST.
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, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at 571-270-3475. 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.
/ERICSON M LACHICA/Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights