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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/03/2023 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Biesheuvel et al (US 2011/0033580) in view of Krüger et al (US 2015/0274411).
Regarding claim 1, Biesheuvel discloses a system for producing a beverage comprising: a capsule (Fig. 1a #102 capsule) provided with a container body defining a containment compartment adapted to contain therein a dose of a food substance for producing the beverage, a machine (Fig. 1a #101 system) for delivering said beverage, the machine being con-figured to inject into the capsule a process liquid for producing the beverage, said machine being provided with an extraction unit comprising: a housing seat (Fig. 1a #106 receptacle) for the capsule (Fig. 1a #102 capsule), and a cutting element (Fig. 1a #122 piercing means), wherein the cutting element (Fig. 1a #122 piercing means) is configured to pierce the bottom of the capsule at the groove so as to define a through-hole cutting through one of the edges of the base wall.
However, Biesheuvel does not disclose said container body comprising: a side wall delimiting an access opening to the containment compartment of the food substance, and a bottom, adapted to close the container body at one end thereof opposite the access opening, said bottom comprising a bottom wall and a groove, said groove being provided with: a base wall delimited by two opposite edges, and two opposite side walls connecting the base wall with the bottom wall, each of which originates from a respective edge of the base wall and is transverse to the base wall itself.
Nonetheless, Krüger in the same field of endeavor being beverage preparing devices teaches a container body comprising:
a side wall (Fig. 1 #1.2 encircling side wall) delimiting an access opening to the containment compartment of the food substance, and a bottom (Fig. 1 #1.1 base region), adapted to close the container body at one end thereof opposite the access opening, said bottom comprising a bottom wall and a groove (Shown in the figure below), said groove being provided with: a base wall (Shown in the figure below) delimited by two opposite edges (Shown in the figure below), and two opposite side walls (Shown in the figure below)connecting the base wall with the bottom wall, each of which originates from a respective edge of the base wall and is transverse to the base wall itself.
PNG
media_image1.png
490
518
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Biesheuvel by incorporating the capsule as taught by Krüger for the benefit of single serve beverage brewing.
Regarding claim 3, Biesheuvel in view of Krüger teaches the system as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Krüger teaches wherein each edge is defined by a corner between the base wall and a respective side wall (Shown in the figure below).
PNG
media_image2.png
490
518
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Biesheuvel by incorporating the capsule as taught by Krüger for the benefit of single serve beverage brewing.
Regarding claim 4, Biesheuvel in view of Krüger teaches the system as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), but does not teach wherein each edge is defined by a fillet between the base wall and a respective side wall.
Nonetheless, since it has been held by the courts that a change in shape or configuration, without any criticality in operation of the device, is nothing more than one of numerous shapes that one of ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide based on the suitability for the intended final application. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976). It appears that the disclosed device would perform equally well shaped as disclosed by Biesheuvel in view of Krüger.
Regarding claim 5, Biesheuvel in view of Krüger teaches the system as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Biesheuvel teaches wherein the cutting element (Fig. 1a #122 piercing means) is provided with an insertion end (Fig. 1a #122 piercing means pointed end) configured to define a first contact between the cutting element (Fig. 1a #122 piercing means) and the capsule (Fig. 1a #102 capsule) for making the through- hole,
However, Biesheuvel in view of Krüger does not teach wherein said first contact between the cutting element and the capsule occurs on one of said edges of the base wall.
Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have said first contact between the cutting element and the capsule occurring on one of said edges of the base wall, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 V. C.
Regarding claim 6, Biesheuvel in view of Krüger teaches the system as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), but does not teach wherein said through-hole is centered on one of said edges.
Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have said through-hole being centered on one of said edges, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 V. C.
Regarding claim 7, Biesheuvel in view of Krüger teaches the system as appears above (see the rejection of claim 6), but does not teach wherein at least one of the side walls of the groove defines with the base wall an angle greater than a right angle.
Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have at least one of the side walls of the groove defined with the base wall an angle greater than a right angle, since it has been held by the courts that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984),
Regarding claim 8, Biesheuvel in view of Krüger teaches the system as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), but does not teach wherein the groove has an annular shape.
Nonetheless, since it has been held by the courts that a change in shape or configuration, without any criticality in operation of the device, is nothing more than one of numerous shapes that one of ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide based on the suitability for the intended final application. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976). It appears that the disclosed device would perform equally well shaped as disclosed by Biesheuvel in view of Krüger.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Biesheuvel et al (US 2011/0033580) in view of Krüger et al (US 2015/0274411) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Hale et al (US 2004/0250686).
Regarding claim 2, Biesheuvel in view of Krüger teaches the system as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), but does not teach wherein said through-hole also cuts through the side wall originating from said edge cut through by the cutting element.
Nonetheless, Hale in the same field of endeavor being beverage preparing devices teaches wherein said through-hole also cuts through the side wall originating from said edge cut through by the cutting element (Shown in the figure below).
PNG
media_image3.png
390
584
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a through-hole cutting through the side wall originating from said edge cut through by the cutting element, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 V. C.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Biesheuvel et al (US 2011/0033580) in view of Krüger et al (US 2015/0274411) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Smith et al (US 2015/0201790).
Regarding claim 9, Biesheuvel in view of Krüger teaches the system as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), but does not teach wherein the cutting element and the capsule are mutually movable along a recti-linear trajectory between a disengaged position, wherein the cutting element is outside the capsule, and an engaged position, wherein it is at least partially inserted inside the capsule.
Nonetheless, Smith in the same field of endeavor being beverage preparing devices wherein the cutting element and the capsule are mutually movable along a recti-linear trajectory between a disengaged position (Fig. 2 shows a disengaged position), wherein the cutting element is outside the capsule, and an engaged position (Fig. 5 shows an engaged position), wherein it is at least partially inserted inside the capsule.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Biesheuvel in view of Krüger by incorporating the disengaged position and engaged position as taught by Smith for the benefit of arranging the capsule for brewing.
Regarding claim 10, Biesheuvel in view of Krüger teaches the system as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), but does not teach wherein the cutting element comprises a spine or a blade or a needle.
Nonetheless, Smith teaches wherein the cutting element comprises a spine or a blade or a needle ([0012] lines 5-8 ---" The liquid inlet and the first and second beverage outlets may each include a piercing element to pierce a cartridge, such as a needle.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Biesheuvel in view of Krüger by incorporating needle as taught by Smith for the benefit of piercing the capsule for brewing.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOE E MILLS JR. whose telephone number is (571)272-8449. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571) 270-5569. 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.
/JOE E MILLS JR./Examiner, Art Unit 3761