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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/26/2023, 08/22/2025, 08/22/2025, 01/14/2026 and 03/24/2026 is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) is/are objected because the references to prior art EP 2952125 Al and WO 2019/013623 Al (cited in page 2 of the specification) was not provided by the Applicant. The Applicant did not attach a copy of the prior art reference and include it in the information disclosure statement (IDS).
Response to Election/Restriction requirement
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-15) in the reply filed on 4/6/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 16-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention.
Abstract
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 1, “Capsule for preparing a beverage” should be “A capsule for preparing a beverage”
Claims 2-15, line 1, “Capsule for preparing a beverage” should be “The capsule for preparing the beverage”.
Claim 1, line 7, “the base body” should be “the capsule body”.
Claim 10, lines 2-3, “100 /m2/s to 5000 1/m2/s” should be “100 l/m2/s to 5000 1/m2/s” (see current application, pub. Para.0127).
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-8, 13 and 15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 4-6, 11-13 and 15 of copending Application No. 18/254,700 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
With respect to claim 1, 18/254,700 discloses
Capsule for preparing a beverage (see claim 1: “Capsule for preparing a beverage”) comprising
a substantially rigid capsule body having a circumferential sidewall extending around an inner space of the capsule (see claim 1: “a substantially rigid capsule body having a circumferential sidewall extending around an inner space of the capsule”), said inner space being at least partially filled with a beverage ingredient suitable for preparing the beverage (See claim 1: “said inner space being at least partially filled with a beverage ingredient suitable for preparing the beverage”),
a rigid base wall, integral with the capsule body, the base wall covering the inner space at a first end of the sidewall (see claim 1: “a rigid base wall, integral with the capsule body, the base wall covering the inner space at a first end of the sidewall”),
a flange arranged circumferentially at a second end of the sidewall of the base body (See claim 1: “a flange arranged circumferentially around an open side of the capsule at a second end of the sidewall of the base body opposite the base wall”),
a lid covering the inner space at a second end of the sidewall opposite the base wall and tightly closing the capsule (See claim 1: “a lid covering the inner space and the open side of the capsule at a second end of the sidewall opposite the base wall and tightly closing the capsule”), and
a filter element positioned in the inner space of the capsule between the beverage ingredient and the lid (see claim 1: “a filter element positioned in the inner space of the capsule between the beverage ingredient and the lid”); and
a carrier disk provided in the inner space of the capsule (see claim 1: “a carrier disk provided in the inner space of the capsule”),
the lid is removably attached to the flange for use of the capsule in a beverage preparation device (see claim 1: “the lid being removably attached to the flange for use of the capsule in a beverage preparation device”), and the carrier disk is provided between the lid and the filter (See claim 1: “the carrier disk is positioned in the inner space of the capsule between the lid and the filter”), said carrier disk comprising multiple preformed outlet openings suitable for draining the prepared beverage from the inner space when the capsule is used in the beverage preparation device (see claim 1: “said carrier disk comprising multiple preformed outlet openings suitable for draining the prepared beverage from the inner space towards the outside of the capsule when the capsule is used in the beverage preparation device”).
With respect to claim 2, 18/254,700 discloses
the carrier disk is positioned inside the capsule at a distance from the lid of between 0.1 mm and 2 mm (see claim 11: “the thickness of the carrier disk is comprised between 0.05 mm and 1.5 mm”).
With respect to claim 3, 18/254,700 discloses
the thickness of the carrier disk is comprised between 0.05 mm and 1.5 mm (see claim 11: “the thickness of the carrier disk is comprised between 0.05 mm and 1.5 mm”). .
With respect to claim 4, 18/254,700 discloses
the openings are circular (See claim 4: “the outlet openings are calibrated circular”).
With respect to claim 5, 18/254,700 discloses
the openings have a diameter of between 0.2 mm and 3 mm (see claim 5: “the outlet openings have a diameter comprised between 0.4 mm and 3 mm”).
With respect to claim 6, 18/254,700 discloses
the carrier disk comprises between 50 and 150 openings (See claim 2: “the carrier disk comprises preferably between 70 and 120 outlet openings”).
With respect to claim 7, 18/254,700 discloses
the openings are homogeneously distributed on the surface of the carrier disk (See claim 6: “the outlet openings are homogeneously distributed on the surface of the carrier disk”).
With respect to claim 8, 18/254,700 discloses
the carrier disk is made of aluminum (See claim 12: “the carrier disk is made of aluminum”).
With respect to claim 13, 18/254,700 discloses
the lid comprises at least an aluminum layer (see claim 13: “the capsule body, the lid, and the carrier disk are each mainly made from aluminum”).
With respect to claim 15, 18/254,700 discloses
in the beverage ingredient comprises ground coffee in an amount of between 4.5 and 15 g (See claim 15: “the beverage ingredient comprises ground coffee in an amount of at least 4 g”).
In addition, claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/254,720 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
With respect to claim 1, 18/254,720 discloses
Capsule for preparing a beverage (see claim 1) comprising
a substantially rigid capsule body having a circumferential sidewall extending around an inner space of the capsule (see claim 1: “a rigid capsule body having a circumferential sidewall extending around an inner space of the capsule”), said inner space being at least partially filled with a beverage ingredient suitable for preparing the beverage (see claim 1: “the inner space being at least partially filled with a beverage ingredient suitable for preparing the beverage”),
a base wall (see claim 1: “a base wall covering the inner space at a first end of the circumferential sidewall”), the base wall covering the inner space at a first end of the sidewall (see claim 1: “a base wall covering the inner space at a first end of the circumferential sidewall”),
a flange arranged circumferentially at a second end of the sidewall of the base body (see claim 1: “a flange arranged circumferentially around an open side of the capsule at a second end of the circumferential sidewall of the rigid capsule body opposite the base wall”),
a lid covering the inner space at a second end of the sidewall opposite the base wall and tightly closing the capsule (see claim 1: “a lid covering the inner space and the open side of the capsule at the second end of the sidewall opposite the base wall and tightly closing the capsule”), and a filter element positioned in the inner space of the capsule between the beverage ingredient and the lid (see claim 1: “a filter element positioned in the inner space of the capsule between the beverage ingredient and the lid”); and
a carrier disk provided in the inner space of the capsule (See claim 1: “a carrier disk provided in the inner space of the capsule between the lid and the filter”), the lid is removably attached to the flange for use of the capsule in a beverage preparation device (see claim 1: “the lid being removably attached to the flange of the capsule”), and the carrier disk is provided between the lid and the filter (See claim 1: “a carrier disk provided in the inner space of the capsule between the lid and the filter”), said carrier disk comprising multiple preformed outlet openings suitable for draining the prepared beverage from the inner space when the capsule is used in the beverage preparation device (see claim 1: “the carrier disk comprising multiple preformed outlet openings suitable for draining the prepared beverage from the inner space outside of the capsule when the capsule is used in a beverage preparation device”).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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 1 recites the limitation “a lid covering the inner space at a second end of the sidewall” in line 8. It is unclear if the term “a second end of the sidewall” corresponds to the “a second end of the sidewall” previously recited in line 7. For examination purposes, the term “a second end of the sidewall” (line 8) is construed as the one in line 7. If so, the term “a second end of the sidewall” (line 8) should be amended as “the term “the second end of the sidewall”.
Claims 2-15 are rejected by the virtue of the dependency upon claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 7-9 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim WO 03/073896A1 (cited in 1/14/2026 IDS)
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses
Capsule (10, see figs.2a-d) for preparing a beverage (see page 14, lines 1-9) comprising a substantially rigid capsule body (sidewall of 20, see fig.2a and page 15, lines 20-21: “the body 20 … made of plastic material, for example, resin, which has a softening point of at least 100°C”) having a circumferential sidewall (sidewall of 20) extending around an inner space of the capsule (inner space of the container 10 between the annotated rigid base wall and the screen 59, see fig.2a), said inner space (inner space of the container 10 between the annotated rigid base wall and the screen 59) being at least partially filled with a beverage ingredient (grounded roast coffee, see page 14, line 4) suitable for preparing the beverage (coffee),
a rigid base wall (see rigid base wall in annotated fig.2a below, which is the top wall of the body 20 as shown in fig.2a. See page 15, lines 20-21: “the body 20 … made of plastic material, for example, resin, which has a softening point of at least 100°C”, wherein the annotated rigid base wall ), integral with the capsule body (sidewall of 20, see fig.2a), the base wall (see rigid base wall in annotated fig.2a below) covering the inner space (inner space of the container 10 between the annotated rigid base wall and the screen 59) at a first end of the sidewall (upper end of 20, see fig.2a),
a flange (22, see fig.2a-2d) arranged circumferentially at a second end of the sidewall of the base body (lower end of sidewall of 20, see fig.2a-2d),
PNG
media_image1.png
698
904
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig.2a and Figs 2b-2b and of Kim
a lid (59, see fig.2a-2d) covering the inner space (inner space of the container 10 between the annotated rigid base wall and the screen 59) at a second end of the sidewall (lower end of 20) opposite the base wall (see rigid base wall in annotated fig.2a) and tightly closing the capsule (see page 7, lines 15-16: “The outlets 57 are sealed by a screen 59 strongly bonded to the body 10 via an adhesive 73”), and
a filter element (71, see fig.2d) positioned in the inner space of the capsule (inner space of the container 10 between the annotated rigid base wall and the screen 59) between the beverage ingredient (grounded roast coffee inside the container 10) and the lid (59, see fig.2a-d); and
a carrier disk (30, see figs.2a-2e, which comprises the outlets 57 are formed in it.) provided in the inner space of the capsule (inner space of the container 10 between the annotated rigid base wall and the screen 59),
the lid (59) is removably attached to the flange (22, see fig.2d) for use of the capsule in a beverage preparation device (intended use, see page 12, lines 25-27: “The screen 59 has the
suspended ear 75 with the hole 77, which can be readily detached with a machine”), and the carrier disk (30, see figs.2a-2e) is provided between the lid (59) and the filter (71), said carrier disk (30, see figs.2a-2e) comprising multiple preformed outlet openings (57, see fig.2d) suitable for draining the prepared beverage from the inner space (see page 8, lines 6-8: “a number of outlets 57 of small diameter formed in the outlet side to allow discharge of the extracted liquid”) when the capsule (10) is used in the beverage preparation device (see page 12, lines 25-27: “The screen 59 has the suspended ear 75 with the hole 77, which can be readily
detached with a hand or a machine”).
Regarding claim 3, Kim further discloses the thickness of the carrier disk is comprised between 0.05 mm and 1.5 mm (see page 16, lines 7-9: “the cover 30 has a thickness of preferably about l00μm ~ 1,000μm.”, wherein l00μm ~ 1,000μm= 0.1-1 mm).
Regarding claim 4, Kim further discloses the openings (57) are circular (see fig.2d and page 10, last line: “The diameter of the outlets 57…”. The outlets 57 with a diameter means they are circular).
Regarding claim 5, Kim further discloses the openings (57) have a diameter of between 0.2 mm and 3 mm (See page 10, last line and page 11, 1st line: “The diameter of the outlets 57 is preferably about 0.2 ~ 1.0m/m”).
Regarding claim 7, Kim further discloses the openings (57, see fig.2a-2d) are homogeneously distributed on the surface of the carrier disk (30).
Regarding claim 8, Kim further discloses the carrier disk (30) is made of aluminum (See page 16, lines 1-2: “the cover 30 may be made of one selected from the group consisting of aluminum sheet…”)
Regarding claim 9, Kim further discloses the filter (71, see figs.2a-2d) is disk-shaped (see fig.2a) and comprises a layer of non-woven material (see page 17, lines 8-9: “nonwoven fiber can refer to a filter 71”) adapted to prevent coffee drain to go through (see page 17, lines 11-13: “The filter 71 is placed on the outlet side so as to prevent dispersion and discharge of insoluble particles or coffee grounds) and reducing the formation of a crema layer (intended use of the filter 71. By having the same material, the filter 71 is capable of “reducing the formation of a crema layer” as claimed. In addition, no crema layer is formed in Kim).
Regarding claim 11, Kim further discloses the filter (71) is assembled on the carrier disk (30, see figs.2a-2f).
Regarding claim 12, Kim further discloses the lid (59, see figs.2a-2d) comprises a free pull tab (75, See fig.2c) protruding from the lid (59, See fig.2c).
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, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim
Regarding claim 2, Kim further discloses the carrier disk (30) is positioned inside the capsule (10) at a distance from the lid (59, see fig.2d), except the carrier disk is positioned inside the capsule at a distance from the lid of between 0.1 mm and 2 mm.
However, the courts have held that where general condition of claim is disposed in the prior art (see fig.2d), it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05 IIa). In this case, Kim teaches the carrier disk (30) is positioned inside the capsule (10) at a certain distance from the lid (59, see fig.2d), and having a specific distance is not inventive according to the courts. Varying the distance to be “between 0.1 mm and 2 mm” recognized as a result-effective variable which is result of a routine experimentation. In this case varying the distance to obtain a proper amount of the adhesive so that the lid is securely bonded to the carrier disk, is recognized in the art to be a result effective variable.
Claims 6 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Kamerbeek (US20160068335A1)
Regarding claim 6, Kim discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, except
the carrier disk comprises between 50 and 150 openings.
Kamerbeek discloses capsule, system and method for preparing a beverage, comprising:
the carrier disk comprises between 50 and 150 openings (see para.0076: “the exit area of the multilayer foil 24 preferably comprises 50-250 openings 25, preferably 70-190, more preferably 100-160 openings”, which overlaps with the claimed range).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the carrier disk of Kim to comprise “between 50 and 150 openings” as taught by Kamerbeek, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.05 IIa).
Regarding claim 10, Kim discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, except the filter comprises a thickness between 0.005 mm to 0.3 mm, an air permeability in the range of 100 /m2/s to 5000 1/m2/s according to ISO 9237 and a weight in the range of 5 g/m2 to 600 g/m2.
Kamerbeek discloses a capsule, system and method for preparing a beverage, comprising:
wherein the filter comprises a thickness between 0.005 mm to 0.3 mm (See para.0011: “The filter layer may have a thickness of approximately between 10 μm-1 mm, preferably between 50 μm-0.2 mm”, which overlaps with the claimed range),
an air permeability in the range of 100 /m2/s to 5000 1/m2/s according to ISO 9237 (see para.0013: “The paper filtering material or the non-woven material of the filter layer may have an air permeability of maximal 550 mm/second measured at a pressure of approximately 200 Pascal”. Thus, if the air permeability =500 mm/second = 0.5 m*l/10^(-3)m^3/ second= 500l/ m^2/s, which overlaps with the claimed range ) and a weight in the range of 5 g/m2 to 600 g/m2 (see para.0078: “the filter layer 26 may be of paper filtering material having a weight of … preferably approximately 15-50 grams/m2”, which overlaps with the claimed range).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the filter of Kim to comprise “thickness between 0.005 mm to 0.3 mm, an air permeability in the range of 100 /m2/s to 5000 1/m2/s according to ISO 9237 and a weight in the range of 5 g/m2 to 600 g/m2” as taught by Kamerbeek since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (see filter 71 in figs.2a-2d of Kim), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.05 IIa)
Claim 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Accursi (US 20150353275 A1)
Regarding claim 13, Kim discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, except the lid comprises at least an aluminum layer.
Accursi discloses a capsule for making beverages, comprising:
the lid (6, see fig.2) comprises at least an aluminum layer (“the lid 6 may be made of an aluminium sheet”, see para.0040).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the lid of Kim to comprise “at least an aluminum layer” as taught Accursi. Doing so protects the ground coffee from oxygen and moisture, preventing oxidation and degradation of flavor and aroma.
Claim 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Vanni (US 20150183576 A1)
Regarding claim 14, Kim discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, except the lid has a thickness between 0.01 mm and 0.05 mm.
Vanni discloses a sealed capsule, comprising:
the lid has a thickness between 0.01 mm and 0.05 mm (See para.0030: “ The cover 3 may have for example a thickness of between 30 .mu.m and 90 .mu.m”= 0.03-0.09 mm, which overlaps the claimed range).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the lid of Kim to have the thickness “between 0.01 mm and 0.05 mm” as taught by Vanni, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (see item 59, figs.2a-2f of Kim), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (See MPEP 2144.05).
Claim 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Tottone US 20210253336 A1
Regarding claim 15, Kim discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, except
the beverage ingredient comprises ground coffee in an amount of between 4.5 and 15 g.
Tottone discloses a capsule for extraction of a beverage of the filter-coffee type, comprising:
the beverage ingredient comprises ground coffee in an amount of between 4.5 and 15 g (see para.0062: “ a weight of between 4 g and 8.5 g is represented by roast and ground coffee”, which overlaps with the claimed range).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the beverage ingredient of Kim to comprise “ground coffee in an amount of between 4.5 and 15 g” as taught by Tottone, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (see grounded roast coffee, see page 14, line 4 of Kim), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (See MPEP 2144.05).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20200223622 A1 discloses a capsule for preparing a beverage comprises a substantially rigid capsule body with a circumferential wall and a base wall that border an inner space filed with a beverage ingredient.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIFFANY T TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3673. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 10am - 6pm.
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, Edward Landrum can be reached on (571) 272-5567. 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 or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TIFFANY T TRAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights