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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12 May 2026 has been entered.
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 1 – 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Safai et al. US 2013/0045307 in view of Andrews et al. US 2020/0223622.
Regarding claims 1 and 3, Safai discloses a capsule (10) capable of preparing a beverage which capsule comprises a substantially rigid capsule body (bowl section 20) having a circumferential sidewall extending around an inner space of the capsule (fig. 2), said inner space being at least partially filled with a beverage ingredient (coffee) (paragraph [0015]) capable of preparing the beverage. There is a base wall (50) covering the inner space at a first end of the circumferential sidewall, a flange (30) 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, and a filter element (60) is positioned in the inner space of the capsule. A carrier disk (40) is provided in the inner space on the flange side of the capsule above the filter which carrier disk comprises multiple preformed outlet openings (42) capable of draining the prepared beverage from the inner space outside of the capsule when the capsule is used in the beverage preparation device and the capsule comprises at least one mechanical deformation (retention protrusions 84) which mechanical deformation retains the carrier disk inside the inner space of the capsule (paragraph [0033]). Safai also discloses the at least one mechanical deformation comprises a substantially rounded crimping imprint (dimples) on the side of the capsule that is open and each of which are in the form of or capable of generating a bead (paragraph [0033] and fig. 3). Safai further discloses that the retention protrusions would also be extensions on the interior perimeter of the flange (extensions on the interior perimeter of flange 30) which is to say that Safai disclose that the at least one mechanical deformation would be at a junction of the flange and side wall of the capsule (paragraph [0034]) making it obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan to have placed the at least one mechanical deformation at said junction.
Claim 1 differs from Safai in 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, the lid being removably attached to the flange of the capsule.
Andrews discloses a capsule (1) capable of preparing a beverage which capsule comprises a substantially rigid capsule body (2) having a circumferential sidewall extending around an inner space of the capsule which inner space is at least partially filled with a beverage ingredient (coffee) capable of preparing a beverage. There is a base wall coving the inner space at a first end of the sidewall, a flange (3) is arranged circumferentially around an open side of the capsule at a second end of the sidewall of the base body opposite the base wall. Andrews further discloses there is a lid (cover element 6) 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, which lid is removably attached to the flange of the capsule and a filter element (membrane 8) is positioned in the inner space of the capsule between the beverage ingredient and the lid. Andrews is providing the 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, the lid being removably attached to the flange of the capsule for the art recognized function of hermetically sealing the inner space of the capsule for maintaining and prolonging the freshness of the beverage ingredient in the capsule during storage which is applicant’s reason for doing so as wall. To therefore modify Safai and substitute the lid covering of Andrews for the outer packaging of Safai to seal the inner space of the capsule to obtain predictable results would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan (MPEP § 2143 III.(B).
Regarding claim 2, once it was known to have the capsule comprises at least one mechanical deformation (retention protrusions 84) in the vicinity of the junction of the flange and sidewall of the capsule which mechanical deformation would retain the carrier disk inside the inner space of the capsule it is not seen that patentability would be predicated on the at least one mechanical deformation at the junction of the flange and sidewall being located on the side of the open side of the capsule absent strong and compelling evidence to the contrary as this would merely constitute a rearrangement of parts and the shifting of the exact location of the mechanical deformation would not modify the operation of, that is the retainment of the carrier disk inside the inner space of the capsule.
Regarding claim 4, Safai in view of Andrews discloses there would be at least one mechanical deformation at the flange and sidewall of the capsule.
The limitation that the mechanical deformation at the junction of the flange and sidewall of the capsule “is a deformation by crimping” is a method limitation and does not determine the patentability of the product, unless the process produces unexpected results. The method of forming the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself, unless Applicant presents evidence from which the Examiner could reasonably conclude that the claimed product differs in kind from those of the prior art. MPEP 2113. Furthermore, there does not appear to be a difference between the prior art structure and the structure resulting from the claimed method because Safai in view of Andrews discloses the capsule would have at least one mechanical deformation (84) at the junction of the flange and the sidewall (‘307, paragraph [0033] and fig. 3).
Regarding claim 5, Safai in view of Andrews discloses the number of mechanical deformations would be at least 2 mechanical deformations (protrusions (plural) 84) (‘307, paragraph [0033]).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Safai in view of Andrews clearly shows (fig. 4) the at least one mechanical deformation would be a plurality, i.e., there would be at least 2 mechanical deformations (protrusions (plural) 84) and they are seen at 180º apart, which is to say said deformations are angularly and equally distributed at the junction of the flange and sidewall of the capsule.
Regarding claim 8, once it was known to provide mechanical deformations in the sidewall of the capsule it is not seen that patentability would be predicated on the particular shape of the mechanical deformations absent strong and compelling evidence to the contrary since the specific shape of said deformations would have been an obvious matter of design and/or choice to the ordinarily skilled artisan. Nevertheless, Safai in view of Andrews discloses the mechanical deformations would be in the form of dimples (‘307, paragraph [0033]) which is to say that said deformations would have rounded crimping imprints.
Regarding claim 9, Safai discloses that the capsule would be made from any material that would be deemed suitable (‘307, paragraph [0040]), which would include aluminium. This is to say that Safai in view of Andrews discloses that most preferred the entire assembly, that is the rigid capsule body, the lid, and other elements, which would include the carrier disk would be mainly made from aluminium (‘622, paragraph [0028]).
Regarding claim 10, Safai in view of Andrews discloses the lid would comprise a free pull tab (pull tab 7) protruding from the lid (‘622, paragraph [0055]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 14 April 2026 have been fully and carefully considered but they are not found persuasive.
Applicant urges that Safai does not disclose the at least one mechanical deformation would be at a junction of the flange and the side wall of the capsule. This urging is not deemed persuasive.
As set forth above in the rejections Safai clearly discloses that it would have been an obvious matter of choice to the ordinarily skilled artisan to place at least one mechanical deformation at a junction of the flange and side wall of the capsule on “on the interior perimeter of flange 30” (paragraph [0034]).
Applicant urges that the skilled artisan would not modify Safai to include a tightly sealed lid as taught by Andrews, that Safai points to disadvantages of tightly sealed prior art brewing capsules, and that a sealed flexible bag would be required to protect the contents of the capsule. These urgings are not found persuasive.
Teaching a way, that is teaching a different way is not seen to be teaching away from providing a sealed capsule at all. In fact Safai teaches that the alternative packaging is also usable with the capsule (paragraph [0038]) which the ordinarily skilled artisan would clearly understand to include sealing the capsule itself, particularly when taking into account the teachings of Andrew it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan to sufficiently seal the capsule to maintain the integrity thereof taking into account the teachings of the prior art taken as a whole. Nor would properly sealing the capsule of Safai in view of Andrews change the principal of operation of the capsule since the principal operation is to prepare a beverage from the capsule.
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 15 May 2026
/VIREN A THAKUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights