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 .
This action is written in response to the amendment filed 01/20/2026
Claims 1-10 are presented for examination
This action is Non-Final
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 7-8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nihan et al. (KR 2009/7021583) in view of Conant et al. (US 2017/0367521).
Claims 1, 10. Nihan discloses a cup made of plastic material, for producing a capsule for preparing infusion or soluble beverages, comprising:
an inlet opening, defined by an upper edge;
a bottom comprising an outer edge, an outlet opening defined by a nozzle, and an intermediate annular support portion;
wherein the bottom, between the intermediate annular support portion and the nozzle, is devoid of radial reinforcing flaps (fig. 4);
an inner base comprising a plurality of vertically protruding ridges (see annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
441
468
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Nihan fails to disclose a multi-layered cup. Conant teaches a co-extruded multi-layer wall comprising an outer layer 32, an inner layer 34 and an intermediate gas-barrier layer 36, wherein said intermediate gas-barrier layer extends from the upper edge to the nozzle (fig. 3); and
and the intermediate gas-barrier layer homogenously extends without interruptions from the upper edge to the nozzle [0043]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the cup layers of Nihan to include the multi-layered cup layers of Conant increase shelf life while maintaining the structural integrity of the cup.
Claim 2. Nihan-Conant discloses the co-extruded cup of claim 1, wherein the bottom, between the intermediate annular support portion and the nozzle, has a wall thickness between 0.8 mm and 1.2 mm (Conant; [0045]).
Claim 7. Nihan-Conant discloses the co-extruded cup of claim 1, wherein the intermediate gas- barrier layer is made of ethylene vinyl alcohol (EVOH) or polyvinyl alcohol (PVOH) (Conant; [0057]).
Claim 8. Nihan-Conant discloses the co-extruded cup of claim 1, wherein both the outer layer and the inner layer are made of one of polypropylene (PP), polyethylene (PE), or polylactic acid (PLA) (Conant; [0051]).
Claim(s) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nihan et al. (KR 2009/7021583) in view of Conant et al. (US 2017/0367521) in view of Bisio (WO 2016/193961).
Claim 3. Nihan-Conant discloses the co-extruded cup of claim 1, but fails to disclose reinforcing rings on the bottom of the cup. Bisio teaches wherein the bottom, between the intermediate annular support portion and the nozzle, is provided with at least one reinforcing ring (fig. 1).
PNG
media_image2.png
149
209
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the cup bottom of Nihan to include the reinforcing rings of Bisio to assist in maintaining the structural integrity of the cup.
Claim 4. Nihan-Conant-Bisio discloses the co-extruded cup of claim 3, wherein the at least one reinforcing ring is a continuous annular inner ridge extending from the bottom and adhering to the nozzle (Bisio; see annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image2.png
149
209
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 5. Nihan-Conant-Bisio discloses the co-extruded cup of claim 3, wherein the at least one reinforcing ring is a continuous annular central ridge extending from the bottom between the intermediate annular support portion and the nozzle (Bisio; fig. 13-14).
Claim 6. Nihan-Conant-Bisio discloses the co-extruded cup of claim 3, wherein the at least one reinforcing ring is a continuous annular outer ridge extending from the bottom towards the intermediate annular support portion (Bisio; see annotated figure of claim 5, fig. 13-14).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 01/20/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under Bisio in view of Fortin have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Nihan-Conant.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAVEN COLLINS whose telephone number is (571)270-1672. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am to 5:00pm 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, ANTHONY STASHICK can be reached at 571-272-4561. 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.
/RAVEN COLLINS/ Examiner, Art Unit 3735
/Anthony D Stashick/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3735