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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-9 and 11-12 in the reply filed on 3/12/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). The applicant provides a copy of the international report on patentability indicating all claims satisfying novelty and inventive step. However, this does not point out any specific error in the restriction requirement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-9 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The claimed ranges of the transition region state the modifier “about’ for the range of .05 to .2mm. The specification provided does not provide for support for the relative limitation “about” newly added to the claims.
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 1-9 and 11-12 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.
The term “about” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Applicant’s specification provides different ranges for the extent of the transition region such as .07-.17, .1-.14, and .12mm. It is unclear if “about” would read on values with differences as suggested in these ranges.
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 (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 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 1-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Behrmann et al. (PGPub# US 2021/0347556 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Behrmann teaches a single serve capsule for preparing a beverage in a brewing chamber of a beverage preparation machine (abstract and figure 1), comprising: a) a base element comprising: i. a cavity (inside of 1) for receiving a beverage raw material; ii. a capsule base 10a; iii. an encircling flange (2); and iv. a capsule wall 10b extending between the capsule base and the encircling flange; and b) a capsule lid 9 closing the cavity; wherein the encircling flange has a sealing element 5a which, in a form of a sealing crimp that points away from the capsule lid (figure 4b and 8), is configured integrally with the encircling flange (par. 95); wherein the sealing crimp comprises an inner shoulder and an outer shoulder (figure 3 and 4b: b1 and b2 correspond to claimed shoulders); wherein the encircling flange between the capsule wall and the inner shoulder has a first flange region (left side of 5a in figure 4b), and between an outer free end of the encircling flange and the outer shoulder has a second flange region (right side of 5a in figure 4b); wherein the capsule lid along a first encircling fastening face is fastened in the first flange region (figures 1 2, 4b, and 8, par. 83-86 and 112-113) , and along a second encircling fastening face is fastened in the second flange region (figures 1 2, 4b, and 8, par. 83-86 and 112-113: Membrane 9 is connected to bottom surface of flange 2b.); wherein a transition region extends between the inner shoulder and the outer shoulder (transition region is being interpreted as region between b1 and b2 closest to point C, par. 127 and figure 3);
Behrmann does not explicitly wherein the transition region in a radial direction has an extent of about 0.05 mm to about 0.20 mm.
However, Behrmann teaches that pD as shown in figure 3 and 4b has a range of .3-1.3mm. Thus the transition region closest to C between b1 and b2 would inherently be smaller than a range of .3-1.3mm. (par. 127-130 and figure 3) A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges overlap or are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05 I. In this case, Behrmann clearly teaches a range that would be close enough and overlapping with the clamed range of about .05mm to .2mm. Further, applicant does not provide a definition of the term “about” in which case examiner takes the position the range disclosed in Behrmann would read on “about” .2mm.
Further, it would also have been obvious to have modified the dimension of the sealing element 5a in order to meet the requirements of the beverage system acting on the capsule. Behrmann teaches the need of the sealing elements 5a to match the profile of a selected engaging member of a beverage apparatus. (par. 97) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected any suitable dimension for the transition region of the sealing element in order to match profile of an engaging member of a selected beverage apparatus. A smaller profile would have led to a smaller transition region, while a larger profile would have led to larger transition region. Failing to match would lead to issues such as tightness issues as taught by Behrmann. (par. 10)
Regarding claim 2, Behrmann teaches wherein the outer free end of the encircling flange is rolled up, in such a manner that the outer free end forms an encircling bead 2c, wherein the encircling bead relative to the encircling flange has a vertical extent of more than zero on one or both sides of the encircling flange (figure 4b and 7-8), wherein the vertical extent of the bead on a side of the encircling flange that faces away from the capsule lid is less than the vertical extent of the sealing crimp, and/or wherein the vertical extent of the encircling bead on a side of the encircling flange that faces the capsule lid is less than on the side of the encircling flange that faces away from the capsule lid. (figure 4b and 7-8, further height of 5a is adjustable par. 41)
Regarding claim 3, Behrmann teaches wherein the inner shoulder as well as the outer shoulder in relation to a horizontal plane running through the first flange region and through the second flange region are aligned at an angle of more than 80 to less than 90 degrees. (figure 3, par, 32, 44, and 128)
Regarding claim 4, Behrmann teaches wherein the first encircling fastening face and the second encircling fastening face each have a substantially horizontal extent. (figure 4b, 7, 8)
Regarding claim 5, Behrmann teaches wherein the first encircling fastening face and the second encircling fastening face are vertically spaced apart from one another, and wherein the first encircling fastening face has a smaller vertical spacing from the capsule base than the second encircling fastening face. (figure 4b taking the face to be the region closest to capsule body.)
Regarding claim 6, Behrmann teaches wherein the vertical spacing between the first encircling fastening face and the second encircling fastening faces is less than three times a thickness of the encircling flange in a region of the first encircling fastening face and/or the second encircling fastening face. (figure 4b taking the face to be the region closest to capsule body. Further, Behrmann teaches embodiments teaching a vertical spacing being the same figure 8 or different figure 7. Thus, the range disclosed by Behrmann would overlap with the claimed range.)
Regarding claim 7, Behrmann teaches wherein the first encircling fastening face and the second encircling fastening face are provided in such a manner that there is no fluid connection between the cavity of the single serve capsule and a cavity present between the capsule lid and the sealing crimp. (par. 48)
Regarding claim 8, Behrmann teaches wherein the inner shoulder and the outer shoulder are configured so as to be mutually symmetrical. (figures 3, 4b, 7, 8)
Regarding claim 9, Behrmann teaches wherein the transition region is configured so as to be curved, or has a transition plane which extends parallel to the first flange region and/or to the second flange region. (figures 3, 4b, 7, 8)
Regarding claim 11, Behrmann teaches wherein the base element is integrally made of aluminum. (par. 82)
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Behrmann et al. (PGPub# US 2021/0347556 A1) in view of Kilber et al. (PGPUB# US 2010/0288131 A1)
Regarding claim 12, Behrmann does not explicitly teach wherein the single serve capsule in a region of the capsule base has a filter.
However, Kilber teaches a similar capsule for a beverage apparatus. (abstract, figure 6) Kilber teaches the use of a filter 52 in a region of the capsule base 43. (par. 63-63 and figures 6-7)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the filter in the region of a capsule base of Kilber, in the apparatus of Behrmann, in order to effectively filter the cartridge contents from the brewed beverage.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5569. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, Marivelisse Santiago-Cordero can be reached at 571-272-7839. 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.
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights