DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the foreign application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of invention and/or species, and corresponding claims (1-9) is acknowledged. The election has been made without traverse. Non-elected claims are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-8 and 9* are 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.
*Claim 9 has dependency issues; see 112b rejection.
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.
Claim(s) 9 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In reference to claim 9, the limitation “small cup ” lacks antecedent basis in claim. The claim is read as depending on claim 4.
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 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.
Claim 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Binacchi (US 20090211713 A1) and in view of Official Notice
In reference to claim 1, Binacchi discloses a method for manufacturing packages (100) adapted to contain a food substance for the preparation of beverages, comprising the steps of:
arranging an outer cup (105) of impermeable material and a die cut (110, 410) of permeable material having larger dimensions with respect to a mouth (145) of the outer cup (105) and resting thereon, (Fig 1, cup 103 and filter 105; Fig 5-7 shows the die cutting process)
bringing a pusher body (295, 425) into contact with a portion of the die cut (110, 410) facing the cavity of the outer cup (105), (Fig 8-10 and “As shown in FIG. 8, the welding device 5 … cause the beaker-shaped filter 105 and the relative shell 101 to be welded together” [P0084])
simultaneously moving the pusher body (295, 425) and … a welding means (275) superimposed thereon towards a bottom wall (115) of the outer cup (105), so as to axially insert the die cut (110, 410) and at least one portion (285) of the ultrasonic welding sonotrode (275) in the outer cup (105) (Fig 9),
activating the … welding means (275) so as to weld the die cut (110, 410) to the mouth (125) of the outer cup (105) (“As shown in FIG. 8, the welding device 5 … cause the beaker-shaped filter 105 and the relative shell 101 to be welded together” [P0084])
extracting the … welding means (275) and the pusher body (295, 425) from the outer cup (105) (Fig 11)
Binacchi discloses the filter and cup are welded by welding means, but does not describe the use of ultrasonic welding.
Binacchi refers to the welding means, which would be understood to include art recognized equivalents for joining materials. Examiner takes notice that ultrasonic welding is an art recognized species in the genus of welding means. Thus, the claim is obvious in view of Binacchi (see MPEP: 2144.08 Obviousness of Species When Prior Art Teaches Genus [R-01.2024]).
In reference to claim 2-3 the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1.
Binacchi further discloses wherein the die cut (410) is shaped as a flat disc, which has a larger diameter with respect to the diameter of the mouth (125) of the outer cup (105) and rests transversely thereon; wherein the step of axially inserting the die cut (410) and at least one portion (285) of the ultrasonic welding sonotrode (275) in the outer cup (105) ends when a perimeter edge of the die cut (410) is brought inside the outer cup (105) to a level not exceeding the level of the mouth (125) thereof (“disc of filtering material” [P0077]) and see Fig 5-7 shows the process of cutting a flat disc from a tape 13 of filter material and then pressing it into the cup).
Conclusion
Any prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS KRASNOW whose telephone number is (571)270-1154. The examiner can normally be reached M-R: 8am-5pm.
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, Xiao Zhao can be reached on 571-270-5343. 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.
/NICHOLAS KRASNOW/Examiner, Art Unit 1744