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 without traverse of Species I: a capsule comprising a body, a flange like rim, an upper wall, and an annular ring attached to only the flange like rim in the reply filed on November 10, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-15 encompass the elected Species I.
An action on the merits of elected Species I, drawn to Claims 1-15, is provided below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on November 3, 2025 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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the annular ring having an inner diameter that is greater than or equal to the diameter of the upper wall as recited in Claim 9 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 12-13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 12 recites the limitation “wherein the material of the annular ring” in line 2. It appears the claim should recite “wherein the biodegradable and/or compostable material” of the annular ring” in order to maintain consistency with “a biodegradable and/or compostable material” recited in Claim 1, lines 12-13.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “wherein the material of the annular ring” in line 2. It appears the claim should recite “wherein the biodegradable and/or compostable material” of the annular ring” in order to maintain consistency with “a biodegradable and/or compostable material” recited in Claim 1, lines 12-13.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 2, 6, 10, 13, and 15 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.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “a beverage” in line 2. It is unclear if this refers to “a beverage” recited in Claim 1, line 2 or to an entirely different beverage. For purposes of examination Examiner interprets the claims to refer to the same beverage.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “an amount of beverage substance” in line 4. It is unclear if this refers to “a substance” recited in Claim 1, line 2 or to an entirely different substance. For purposes of examination Examiner interprets the claims to refer to the same substance.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “this side” in line 3. It is unclear what structure “this” refers to.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “wherein the annular ring is flush with an outer edge of the flange like rim” in lines 2-3. The term “flush” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “flush” 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.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the material of the body” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “the material of the body” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 10, 12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Andreae et al. US 2017/0008694.
Regarding Claim 1, Andreae et al. discloses a capsule (capsule 41) comprising a body (housing 42) defining an enclosure wherein the body comprises a bottom end and an open end, a flange like rim (engagement edge 44) extending outwardly from the body, an upper wall (film/foil 8) attached to the flange like rim (engagement edge 44) to cover an opening of the body at its open end (‘694, Paragraph [0057]), and an annular ring (sealing ring 50) that is separately provided and clampable between the flange like rim (engagement edge 44) and a beverage production device (‘694, Paragraphs [0068]-[0069]) wherein the annular ring (sealing ring 50) is made of a compostable material (‘694, Paragraph [0036]).
PNG
media_image1.png
868
1451
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Further regarding Claim 1, the limitations “designed for insertion in a beverage production device for preparing a beverage from a substance contained in the capsule by introducing liquid into the capsule,” “for containing an amount of beverage substance,” and “clampable between the flange like rim and the beverage production device when the capsule is inserted in the beverage production device for preparing the beverage” are seen to be recitations regarding the intended use of the “capsule.” In this regard, applicant’s attention is invited to MPEP § 2114.I. and MPEP § 2114.II. which states features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally in view of In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997). If an examiner concludes that a functional limitation is an inherent characteristic of the prior art, then to establish a prima facie case of anticipation or obviousness, the examiner should explain that the prior art structure inherently possess the functionally defined limitations of the claimed apparatus in view of In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432. See also Bettcher Industries, Inc. v. Bunzl USA, Inc., 661 F.3d 629, 639-40,100 USPQ2d 1433, 1440 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The burden then shifts to applicant to establish that the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on in view of In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432; In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213, 169 USPQ 226, 228 (CCPA 1971). Additionally, apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does in view of Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claimed in view of Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Furthermore, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Nevertheless, Andreae et al. discloses the capsule being designed for insertion in a beverage production device for preparing a beverage from a substance (ground coffee) contained in the capsule (‘694, Paragraphs [0004] and [0039]) by introducing liquid into the capsule (‘694, Paragraph [0072]). The body contains an amount of beverage substance (ground coffee) (‘694, Paragraphs [0004] and [0039]). The annular ring (sealing ring 50) is capable of being clamped between the flange like rim (engagement edge 44) and the beverage production device when the capsule is inserted in the beverage production device for preparing the beverage (‘694, Paragraph [0072]).
Regarding Claim 2, the limitations “wherein the capsule is designed for preparing a beverage from a substance contained in the capsule by passing the so introduced liquid through the capsule using centrifugal forces” are intended use limitations and as such are rejected for the same reasons regarding intended use enumerated in the rejections of Claim 1 provided above.
Regarding Claim 3, Andreae et al. discloses the annular ring (sealing ring 50) being attached to the flange like rim (engagement edge 44) (‘694, FIG. 10) (‘694, Paragraph [0068]).
Further regarding Claim 3, the limitations “and/or the upper wall and/or wherein the upper wall is sandwiched between the annular ring and the flange like rim” are optional limitations by virtue of the phrase “and/or” and since the prior art teaches the limitations “wherein the annular ring is attached to the flange like rim” that precedes the “and/or” clauses.
Regarding Claim 4, Andreae et al. discloses the annular ring (sealing ring 50) being attached by sealing (‘694, Paragraph [0069]).
Regarding Claim 10, Andreae et al. discloses the annular ring (sealing ring 50) being flush with an outer edge of the flange like rim (engagement edge 44) (‘694, FIGS. 9-12).
Regarding Claim 12, Andreae et al. discloses the capsule being made of bioplastics (biopolymers) (‘694, Paragraph [0027]) that the compostable (‘694, Paragraph [0028]) and the housing and sealing element being made of substantially the same material (‘694, Paragraph [0035]) and the annular ring (sealing ring 50) being completely compostable (‘694, Paragraph [0068]). Therefore, Andreae et al. teaches the material of the sealing ring being made of bioplastics, i.e. the same bioplastic material as that of the housing.
Regarding Claim 15, Andreae et al. discloses the body being at least partly made of a biodegradable and compostable material (‘694, Paragraph [0026]) and the material of the body having a multilayer structure (‘694, Paragraphs [0007], [0056], and [0064]).
Claims 1-2, 6-7, 9-10, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cabilli et al. US 2018/0229923.
Regarding Claim 1, Cabilli et al. discloses a capsule (cartridge 10) comprising a body (body 14) defining an enclosure comprising a bottom end (bottom wall 142), and a top end, a flange like rim (mouth part 144) extending outwardly from the body (body 14), an upper wall (cover 16) attached to the flange like rim (mouth part 144) to cover an opening of the body (body 14) at its open end, and an annular ring (lock ring 150) that is separately provided and clampable between the flange like rim (mouth part 144) and a beverage production device (‘923, FIGS. 7-8) (‘923, Paragraphs [0057]-[0062]). The annular ring is made at least partly of a compostable material (“923, Paragraphs [0067], [0080], and [0096]).
PNG
media_image2.png
1598
934
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Further regarding Claim 1, the limitations “designed for insertion in a beverage production device for preparing a beverage from a substance contained in the capsule by introducing liquid into the capsule,” “for containing an amount of beverage substance,” and “clampable between the flange like rim and the beverage production device when the capsule is inserted in the beverage production device for preparing the beverage” are seen to be recitations regarding the intended use of the “capsule.” In this regard, applicant’s attention is invited to MPEP § 2114.I. and MPEP § 2114.II. which states features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally in view of In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997). If an examiner concludes that a functional limitation is an inherent characteristic of the prior art, then to establish a prima facie case of anticipation or obviousness, the examiner should explain that the prior art structure inherently possess the functionally defined limitations of the claimed apparatus in view of In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432. See also Bettcher Industries, Inc. v. Bunzl USA, Inc., 661 F.3d 629, 639-40,100 USPQ2d 1433, 1440 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The burden then shifts to applicant to establish that the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on in view of In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432; In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213, 169 USPQ 226, 228 (CCPA 1971). Additionally, apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does in view of Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claimed in view of Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Furthermore, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding Claim 2, the limitations “wherein the capsule is designed for preparing a beverage from a substance contained in the capsule by passing the so introduced liquid through the capsule using centrifugal forces” are intended use limitations and as such are rejected for the same reasons regarding intended use enumerated in the rejections of Claim 1 provided above.
Regarding Claim 6, Cabilli et al. discloses the upper wall (cover 16) being attached to a planar side of the flange like rim (mouth part 144) and the annular ring (lock ring 150) being arranged on this side (‘923, FIGS. 7-8).
Regarding Claim 7, Cabilli et al. discloses the annular ring (lock ring 150) protruding with a height from the flange like rim (mouth part 144) (‘923, FIGS. 7-8).
Further regarding Claim 7, the limitations “and/or the upper wall in a direction away from the bottom end wherein the height is preferably at least 1 mm” are optional limitations that do not need to be taught by the prior art by virtue of the terms “and/or” and “preferably” and since the prior art reads on the limitations “wherein the annular ring protrudes with a height from the flange like rim” that precedes the phrase “and/or”.
Regarding Claim 9, Cabilli et al. discloses the annular ring (lock ring 150) having an inner diameter that is greater than or equal to the diameter of the upper wall (cover 16) (‘923, FIGS. 7-8).
Regarding Claim 10, Cabilli et al. discloses the annular ring (lock ring 150) being flush with an outer edge of the flange like rim (mouth part 144) (‘923 FIGS. 7-8).
Regarding Claim 15, Cabilli et al. discloses the body (body 14) being at least partly made of a biodegradable and compostable material (‘923, Paragraphs [0049]-[0050]).
Further regarding Claim 15, the limitations “and/or compostable material and/or wherein the material of the body has a multilayer structure” are optional limitations by virtue of the phrase “and/or” and since the prior art teaches the limitations “wherein the body is at least partly made of a biodegradable…material” that precedes the “and/or” clauses.
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-3, 6-8, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van der Vliet et al. US 2017/0190451 in view of Yoakim et al. US 2011/0041702.
Regarding Claim 1, van der Vliet et al. discloses a capsule (cup part 12) comprising a body (sidewall 18) defining an enclosure wherein the body (sidewall 18) comprises a bottom end (bottom wall 16) and an open end, a flange like rim (flange 26) extending outwardly from the body (sidewall 18) (‘451, Paragraphs [0148]-[0152]), an upper wall (cover 14) attached to the flange like rim (flange 26) to cover an opening of the body (sidewall 18) at its open end (‘451, Paragraph [0185]), and an annular ring (first circular sealing ring 160) that is provided (‘451, FIG. 19) (‘451, Paragraph [0153]) and clampable between the flange like rim (flange 26) and a beverage production device (device 100) when the capsule (cup part 12) is inserted in the beverage production device (device 100) (‘451, FIGS. 12-16) (‘451, Paragraph [0185]) wherein the annular ring is made from a different material than that of the body (‘451, Paragraph [0033]).
PNG
media_image3.png
899
1011
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Van der Vliet et al. is silent regarding the annular ring being separately provided and the annular ring being made at least partly of a biodegradable and/or compostable material.
Yoakim et al. discloses a capsule comprising a body defining an enclosure wherein the body comprises a bottom end and an open end, a flange like rim (rim 3) extending outwardly from the body, an upper wall attached to the flange like rim (rim 3) to cover an opening of the body at its open end, and an annular ring (sealing means 40) that is separately provided (sealing means 40 is an added seal element) (‘702, FIG. 5) (‘702, Paragraph [0056]) and clampable between the flange like rim (rim 3) and a beverage production device when the capsule is inserted in the beverage production device (‘702, FIG. 5) wherein the annular ring (sealing means) is made of a biodegradable material (‘702, Paragraph [0043]).
PNG
media_image4.png
567
895
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Both Van der Vliet et al. and Yoakim et al. are directed towards the same field of endeavor of beverage capsules designed for insertion in a beverage production device. The beverage capsules of van der Vliet et al. and Yoakim et al. both comprise a body defining an enclosure, a flange like rim, an upper wall attached to the flange like rim, and an annular ring disposed on the flange like rim. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the annular ring disposed on the flange like rim of van der Vliet et al. to be a separately provided annular ring as taught by Yoakim et al. since if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to the annular ring to the flange like rim to which the annular ring is applied, it would be obvious to make the annular ring removable for that purpose in view of In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961) (MPEP § 2144.04.V.C.). Additionally, the limitations regarding the annular ring being separately provided are product by process limitations. Even though product by process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product by process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process in view of In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (MPEP § 2113.I.). Yoakim et al. discloses that it was known in the coffee capsule art to construct a coffee capsule with an annular ring disposed on a flange like rim which annular ring serves as a sealing element that contacts a beverage preparation device to be made integral with or separate from the flange like rim of the capsule. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the capsule of van der Vliet et al. and construct the annular ring out of a biodegradable material as taught by Yoakim et al. in order to make the capsule environmentally friendly during disposal.
Further regarding Claim 1, the limitations “designed for insertion in a beverage production device for preparing a beverage from a substance contained in the capsule by introducing liquid into the capsule,” “for containing an amount of beverage substance,” and “clampable between the flange like rim and the beverage production device when the capsule is inserted in the beverage production device for preparing the beverage” are seen to be recitations regarding the intended use of the “capsule.” In this regard, applicant’s attention is invited to MPEP § 2114.I. and MPEP § 2114.II. which states features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally in view of In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997). If an examiner concludes that a functional limitation is an inherent characteristic of the prior art, then to establish a prima facie case of anticipation or obviousness, the examiner should explain that the prior art structure inherently possess the functionally defined limitations of the claimed apparatus in view of In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432. See also Bettcher Industries, Inc. v. Bunzl USA, Inc., 661 F.3d 629, 639-40,100 USPQ2d 1433, 1440 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The burden then shifts to applicant to establish that the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on in view of In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432; In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213, 169 USPQ 226, 228 (CCPA 1971). Additionally, apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does in view of Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claimed in view of Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Furthermore, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Nevertheless, van der Vliet et al. discloses the capsule being designed for insertion in a beverage production device (device 100) (‘451, Paragraph [0185]) for preparing a beverage from a substance (ground coffee) contained in the capsule (‘451, Paragraph [0184]) by introducing liquid (water) into the capsule (‘451, Paragraphs [0101] and [0216]) and the capsule being clampable between the flange like rim and the beverage production device when the capsule is inserted in the beverage production device (device 100) for preparing the beverage (‘451, Paragraph [0185]).
Regarding Claim 2, the limitations “wherein the capsule is designed for preparing a beverage from a substance contained in the capsule by passing the so introduced liquid through the capsule using centrifugal forces” are intended use limitations and as such are rejected for the same reasons regarding intended use enumerated in the rejections of Claim 1 provided above.
Regarding Claim 3, van der Vliet et al. discloses the annular ring (first sealing ring 160) being attached to the flange like rim (flange 26) (‘451, FIG. 19) (‘451, Paragraphs [0160]-[0162]).
Further regarding Claim 3, the limitations “and/or the upper wall and/or wherein the upper wall is sandwiched between the annular ring and the flange like rim” are optional limitations by virtue of the phrase “and/or” and since the prior art teaches the limitations “wherein the annular ring is attached to the flange like rim” that precedes the “and/or” clauses.
Regarding Claim 6, van der Vliet et al. discloses the upper wall (cover 14) being attached to a planar side of the flange like rim (flange 26) wherein the annular ring (first sealing ring 160) is arranged on this side (‘451, FIG. 19) (‘451, Paragraph [0155]).
Regarding Claim 7, van der Vliet et al. discloses the annular ring (first sealing ring 160) protruding with a height from the flange like rim (flange 26) (‘451, FIG. 19).
Further regarding Claim 7, the limitations “and/or the upper wall in a direction away from the bottom end wherein the height is preferably at least 1 mm” are optional limitations that do not need to be taught by the prior art by virtue of the terms “and/or” and “preferably” and since the prior art reads on the limitations “wherein the annular ring protrudes with a height from the flange like rim” that precedes the phrase “and/or”.
Regarding Claim 8, van der Vliet et al. discloses the annular ring (first sealing ring 160) having an outer diameter that is smaller than the diameter of the upper wall (circular beaded edge 80 of cover 14 is flattened against the underside of the flange (‘451, FIG. 19) (‘451, Paragraphs [0196] and [0229]).
Regarding Claim 12, Yoakim et al. discloses the material of the annular ring (sealing means 40) being paper fibers (‘702, Paragraphs [0043] and [0056]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the annular ring of the capsule of van der Vliet et al. and construct the annular ring out of biodegradable paper fibers as taught by Yoakim et al. since the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination in view of Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (MPEP § 2144.07). Yoakim et al. teaches that there was known utility in the beverage capsule art to construct an annular ring disposed on the flange like rim that serves as a sealing element when contacting a beverage preparation device out of biodegradable paper fibers.
Regarding Claim 13, van der Vliet et al. discloses the material of the annular ring being different from the material of the body (‘451, Paragraph [0033]).
Regarding Claim 14, van der Vliet et al. discloses the bottom end and the open end being spaced apparat in an axial direction and the flange like rim and the upper wall extending transversely to the axial direction (‘451, FIG. 4). Yoakim et al. discloses the flange like rim being integral with the body (‘702, Paragraphs [0032] and [0037]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the capsule of van der Vliet et al. and construct the flange like rim to be integral with the body as taught by Yoakim et al. since the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in the prior art would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice in view of In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965) (MPEP § 2144.04.V.B.).
Regarding Claim 15, Yoakim et al. discloses the body being at least partly made of a biodegradable material (‘702, Paragraphs [0039] and [0055]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the capsule of van der Vliet et al. and construct the body at least partly of a biodegradable material as taught by Yoakim et al. in order to make the capsule environmentally friendly during disposal.
Further regarding Claim 15, the limitations “and/or compostable material and/or wherein the material of the body has a multilayer structure” are optional limitations by virtue of the phrase “and/or” and since the prior art teaches the limitations “wherein the body is at least partly made of a biodegradable…material” that precedes the “and/or” clauses.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van der Vliet et al. US 2017/0190451 in view of Yoakim et al. US 2011/0041702 as applied to claim 3 above in further view of Yoakim et al. US 2007/0202237 (herein referred to as “Yoakim et al. ‘237”).
Regarding Claims 4-5, van der Vliet et al. modified with Yoakim et al. is silent regarding the annular ring being attached by sealing or welding or by an adhesive bond.
Yoakim et al. ‘237 discloses a capsule (capsule 1) comprising a body defining an enclosure, a flange like rim extending outwardly from the body, an upper wall attached to the flange like rim, and an annular ring disposed on the flange like rim (‘237, FIG. 3) wherein the annular ring is attached by sealing/welding/adhesive (‘237, Paragraph [0067]).
Both modified van der Vliet et al. and Yoakim et al. ‘237 are directed towards the same field of endeavor of beverage capsules. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the capsule of modified van der Vliet et al. and attach the annular ring to the flange like rim by sealing or welding an and adhesive bond since Yoakim et al. ‘237 teaches that sealing or welding and adhesive bonds were known attachment means for attaching the annular ring to the flange like rim of a beverage capsule.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van der Vliet et al. US 2017/0190451 in view of Yoakim et al. US 2011/0041702 as applied to claim 1 above in further view of Andreae et al. US 2017/0008694.
Regarding Claim 10, van der Vliet et al. modified with Yoakim et al. is silent regarding the annular ring being flush with an outer edge of the flange like rim.
Andreae et al. discloses a capsule (capsule 41) comprising a body (housing 42) defining an enclosure wherein the body comprises a bottom end and an open end, a flange like rim (engagement edge 44) extending outwardly from the body, an upper wall (film/foil 8) attached to the flange like rim (engagement edge 44) to cover an opening of the body at its open end (‘694, Paragraph [0057]), and an annular ring (50) that is separately provided and clampable between the flange like rim (engagement edge 44) and a beverage production device (‘694, Paragraphs [0068]-[0069]) wherein the annular ring (sealing ring 50) is made of a compostable material (‘694, Paragraph [0036]). Andreae et al. further discloses the annular ring (sealing ring 50) being flush with an outer edge of the flange like rim (engagement edge 44) (‘694, FIGS. 9-12).
PNG
media_image1.png
868
1451
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Both modified van der Vliet et al. and Andreae et al. are directed towards the same field of endeavor of beverage capsules used in a beverage preparation machine. The beverage capsules of modified van der Vliet et al. and Andreae et al. both comprise a body defining an enclosure, a flange like rim extending outwardly from the body, an upper wall attached to the flange like rim to cover an opening of the body at its open end, and an annular ring disposed on the flange like rim. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the capsule of modified van der Vliet et al. and construct the annular ring such that the annular ring is flush with an outer edge of the flange like rim as taught by Andreae et al. since the configuration of the claimed annular ring relative to the flange like rime is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed annular ring relative to the flange like rim was significant in view of In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (MPEP § 2144.04.IV.B.). Andreae et al. teaches that there was known utility in the beverage capsule art to construct the annular ring to be flush with an outer edge of the flange like rim.
Regarding Claim 11, Andreae et al. discloses the annular ring (sealing element) being made with PLA enriched with one or more additives to regulate the modulus of elasticity (‘694, Paragraph [0035]) and the annular ring (sealing element) having improved strength and flexibility for improving the sealing capacity (‘694, Paragraph [0019]). Although van der Vliet et al. modified with Yoakim et al. and Andreae et al. does not explicitly state the particular Young’s modulus of the annular ring to be at least 1000 MPa, Andreae et al. teaches enriching the annular ring sealing element with one or more additives to regulate the modulus of elasticity, which is a generic term for Young’s modulus. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the properties of the annular ring sealing element of modified van der Vliet et al. by adding additives to adjust the modulus of elasticity/Young’s modulus of the sealing element as taught by Andreae et al. since differences in the modulus of elasticity/Young’s modulus of the annular ring sealing element will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such modulus of elasticity/Young’s modulus of the sealing element is critical. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation in view of In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP § 2144.05.II.A.). One of ordinary skill in the art would adjust the modulus of elasticity/Young’s modulus of the annular ring sealing element of modified van der Vliet et al. by adding additives to the annular ring sealing element based upon the desired flexibility, strength, and sealing capacity of the annular ring sealing element as taught by Andreae et al.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
ES 1226796 (cited on Information Disclosure Statement filed November 3, 2023) discloses a capsule (capsule 1) comprising a body (main body 3) defining an enclosure wherein the body (main body 3) comprises a bottom end and an open end, a flange like rim (flat rim 2) extending outwardly from the body, an upper wall (closing sheet 4) attached to the flange like rim (flat rim 2) to cover an opening of the body at its open end, and an annular ring (sealing element 5) provided and clampable between the flange like rim (flat rim 2) (‘796, FIG. 2) (‘796 Machine Translation, Paragraphs [0045]-[0049]) wherein the annular ring (sealing element) is made at least partly of a compostable material (‘796 Machine Translation, Paragraph [0007]).
PNG
media_image5.png
784
1427
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Burress et al. US 2017/0210553 (cited on Information Disclosure Statement filed November 3, 2023) discloses a capsule (pod 4) comprising a body (well section 50) defining an enclosure wherein the body (well section 50) comprises a bottom end and an open end, a flange like rim (upper flange 52) extending outwardly from the body (well section 50), an upper wall (upper lid 56) attached to the flange like rim (upper flange 52) to cover an opening of the body (well section 50) at its open end, and an annular ring (adhesive layer 54) provided and clampable between the flange like rim (upper flange 52) (‘553, FIG. 6) (‘553, Paragraphs [0044]-[0047]) wherein the annular ring (adhesive layer 54) is made at least partly of a biodegradable material (‘553, Paragraph [0044]).
PNG
media_image6.png
1311
886
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Abegglen et al. US 2014/0370161 discloses a capsule (capsule 2) comprising a body (cup portion 28) defining an enclosure wherein the body (cup portion 28) comprises a bottom end and an open end (‘161, Paragraph [0092]), a flange like rim (flange portion 29) extending outwardly from the body (cup portion 28), an upper wall (foil 44) attached to the flange like rim (flange portion 29) to cover an opening of the body (cup portion 28) at its open end (‘161, Paragraph [0097]), and an annular ring (valve engaging portion 30) (‘161, FIG. 4) provided and clampable between the flange like rim (flange portion 29) and a beverage production device (beverage preparation device 3) when the capsule (capsule 2) is inserted in the beverage production device (beverage preparation device 3) (‘161, FIGS. 6-7) (‘161, Paragraph [0092]) wherein the annular ring (valve engaging portion 30) is made at least partly of a biodegradable material (‘161, Paragraph [0114]).
PNG
media_image7.png
847
1420
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Gort-Barten GB 2 570 310 (cited on Information Disclosure Statement filed November 3, 2023) discloses a capsule (capsule 1) comprising a body (main body 2) defining an enclosure wherein the body (main body 2) comprises a bottom end (upper end 3) and an open end, a flange like rim (flange 7) extending outwardly from the body (main body 2), an upper wall attached to the flange like rim (flange 7) to cover an opening of the body at its open end (‘310, Page 3, lines 19-30), and an annular ring (ring shaped seal disposed on gutter 9) (‘310, FIG. 1) (‘310, Page 4, lines 3-5) provided and clampable between the flange like rim and a beverage production device when the capsule is inserted in the beverage production device (‘310, Page 2, lines 7-13) wherein the annular ring (seal) is made at least partly of a recyclable material (‘310, Page 3, lines 13-14).
PNG
media_image8.png
845
1361
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Dijkstra et al. US 2018/0297775 discloses a capsule (capsule 2) comprising a body (sidewall 16) defining an enclosure wherein the body (sidewall 16) comprises a bottom end (bottom 18) and an open end, a flange like rim (flange 20) extending outwardly from the body, an upper wall (cover 14) attached to the flange like rim (flange 20) to cover an opening of the body at its open end (‘775, Paragraphs [0058] and [0060]-[0061]), and an annular ring (sealing member 28) having a height of between 0.1 mm and 3 mm (‘775, FIGS. 3A-3B) (‘775, Paragraph [0066]).
PNG
media_image9.png
896
1579
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Andreae et al. US 2017/0158422 discloses a capsule (capsule 11) comprising a body (housing 12) defining an enclosure wherein the body (housing 12) comprises a bottom end and an open end, a flange like rim (laterally protruding engaging edge 12c) extending outwardly from the body (housing 12), an upper wall (film 13) attached to the flange like rim (laterally protruding engaging edge 12c) to cover an opening of the body (housing 12) at its open end, and an annular ring (sealing ring 14) separately provided (‘422, FIG. 4) (‘422, Paragraph [0042]) and clampable between the flange like rim (laterally protruding engaging edge 12c) and a beverage production device when the capsule (capsule 11) is inserted in the beverage production device (‘422, Paragraphs [0042] and [0045]) wherein the annular ring (sealing ring 14) is made at least partly of a biodegradable material (‘422, Paragraph [0020]).
PNG
media_image10.png
804
1432
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Yoakim et al. US 2006/0110507 discloses a capsule (capsule 1) comprising a body (sidewall 7) defining an enclosure wherein the body (sidewall 7) comprises a bottom end (top wall 17) and an open end, a flange like rim (flange like rim 6) extending outwardly from the body, an upper wall attached to the flange like rim (flange like rim 6) to cover an opening of the body at its open end, and an annular ring (sealing member 8) that is separately provided (‘507, Paragraph [0068]) and clampable between the flange like rim (flange like rim 6) and a beverage production device (between bell member 9 and capsule holder 13)) when the capsule (capsule 1) is inserted in the beverage production device (‘507, FIGS. 6-7) (‘507, Paragraph [0080]) wherein the annular ring (sealing member 8) is made of a material that is more resilient than the material of the base body and the sealing member has a hardness that is lower than the hardness of the material of the base body (‘507, Paragraph [0085]).
PNG
media_image11.png
923
998
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Kobler EP 2 682 028 discloses a capsule comprising a body defining an enclosure wherein the body comprises a bottom end and an open end, a flange like rim extending outwardly from the body, an upper wall (support disk 17) attached to the flange like rim to cover an opening of the body at its open end (‘028 Machine Translation, Paragraph [0035]), and an annular ring (sealing element 15) that is separately provided and clampable between the flange like rim and a beverage production device (‘028, FIG. 13A) (‘028 Machine Translation, Paragraph [0074]).
PNG
media_image12.png
559
922
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Hokari EP 0 453 573 discloses a container comprising a body (containing body 1) defining an enclosure wherein the body (containing body 1) comprises a bottom end and an open end, a flange like rim (flange 12) extending outwardly from the body, an upper wall (lid member 2) attached to the flange like rim (flange 12) to cover an opening of the body at its open end, and an annular ring (annular member 4) that is separately provided and clampable between the flange like rim (flange 12) and a beverage production device (‘573, FIG. 8) (‘573, Column 4, lines 31-51).
PNG
media_image13.png
752
1427
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Talon US 2017/0231421 discloses Young’s modulus is an intrinsic characteristic of a material that affects the elastic deformation force (‘421, Paragraph [0115]).
Abegglen et al. US 2010/0015307 discloses a capsule comprising a body having a young modulus that is higher than the sealing member (‘307, Paragraph [0083]).
Gort-Barten US 2020/0385204 discloses a capsule comprising an annular flange provided with an annular sealing means which deforms plastically in use when engaged by a capsule cage of a coffee machine (‘204, Paragraph [0011]).
Talon US 2019/0322438 discloses a capsule comprising a sealing ring made of deformable and/or elastic material to support the fluid tightness during beverage preparation (‘438, Paragraph [0043]).
Ogink et al. US 2019/0274467 discloses a capsule comprising a sealing member that is resilient and/or plastically deforming which sealing member is placed on the rim towards the cup shaped body or on the side facing away from the cup shaped body (‘467, Paragraph [0127]).
Doglioni Majer US 2014/0234494 discloses a capsule comprising a sealing protrusion that is elastically and/or plastically deformable when it contacts the lower edge of a receptacle to exert a pressure that provides a seal engagement (‘494, Paragraph [0089]) to avoid any leakage of the brewing liquid injected into the capsule (‘494, Paragraph [0109]).
Meelker et al. US 2013/0064936 discloses a capsule comprising a rim having elastically and/or plastically deformable circumferential ribs (‘936, Paragraph [0091]).
Fraser et al. US 2016/0107806 discloses Young’s modulus is also known as tensile modulus and is a measure of stiffness (‘806, Paragraph [0128]).
Campenelli et al. US 2015/0251814 discloses Young’s Modulus is also known as Elastic Modulus (‘814, Paragraph [0043]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERICSON M LACHICA whose telephone number is (571)270-0278. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-5pm, 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, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at 571-270-3475. 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.
/ERICSON M LACHICA/Examiner, Art Unit 1792