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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on March 9, 2026 was filed after the mailing date of the Non-Final Rejection mailed on January 20, 2026. 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.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “wherein the annular ring has an outer diameter that is smaller than or equal to the diameter of the upper wall.” Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein the annular ring has an inner diameter that is greater than or equal to the diameter of the upper wall.” Therefore, the embodiment of Claim 8 in which the annular ring has an outer diameter that is smaller than the diameter of the upper wall and the annular ring has an inner diameter that is greater than the diameter of the upper wall must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
Claim 17 recites the limitation wherein the convex portion extends from the bottom end to the open end of the body. These limitations are not shown in the drawings. Therefore, the embodiment of Claim 17 in which the convex portion extends from the bottom end to the open end of the body 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 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 1-8 and 10-17 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 1 recites the limitation “an open end” in lines 7-8. It is unclear if this refers to “an open end” recited in Claim 1, line 5 or to an entirely different open end. For purposes of examination Examiner interprets the claim to refer to the same open end.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the beverage” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is only antecedent basis for “a beverage substance” as recited in Claim 1, line 2.
Clarification is required.
Claims 3-8 and 10-17 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
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 1-3, 6-7, 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) containing a beverage substance (dose 12 of ground coffee) (‘923, Paragraph [0029]) wherein the capsule (cartridge 10) comprises a body (body 14) defining an enclosure configured for containing an amount of the beverage substance (dose 12 of ground coffee) (‘923, Paragraphs [0028] [0029]). The body (body 14) comprises 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 an open end, and an annular ring (lock ring 150) that is separately provided on the flange like rim (mouth part 144) (‘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]). The annular ring (lock ring 150) has an inner diameter that is greater than or equal to the diameter of the upper wall (cover 16) (‘923, FIG. 7).
PNG
media_image1.png
1598
934
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Further regarding Claim 1, the limitations “prior to using the capsule in a beverage preparation device” 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 complementary to a capsule holder of the beverage production device and wherein the capsule is configured for extraction of the beverage 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. Nevertheless, Cabilli et al. discloses the capsule being used in a beverage production device (machine) (‘923, Paragraphs [0083] and [0095]).
Regarding Claim 3, Cabilli et al. discloses the annular ring (lock ring 150) being attached to the flange like rim (mouth part 144) and the upper wall (cover 16) wherein and wherein the upper wall (cover 16) is sandwiched between the annular ring (lock ring 150) and the flange like rim (mouth part 144) (‘923, FIGS. 7-8) (‘923, Paragraphs [0095]-[0096]).
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 the planar 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 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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cabilli et al. US 2018/0229923 as applied to claim 1 above in view of Biesheuvel et al. US 2016/0068336, Trombetta et al. US 2014/0345471, and Nordqvist et al. US 2017/0174417.
Regarding Claim 2, Cabilli et al. anticipates the limitations of Claim 1 as enumerated in the rejection under 35 USC 102 above. However, in the event that it can be argued that the capsule of Cabilli et al. is not necessarily complementary to a capsule holder of the beverage production device or the capsule is not configured for extraction of the beverage using centrifugal forces, Biesheuvel et al. discloses a capsule (capsule 2) having a shape complementary to a capsule holder (receptacle 6) of a beverage production device (‘336, FIG. 1) (‘336, Paragraph [0107]). Trombetta et al. discloses a capsule (capsules 12) housed in a capsule holder (capsule containment portion 24) of a beverage production device that can accommodate capsules (capsules 12) of different shapes or diameters (‘471, FIGS. 5-6) (‘471, Paragraph [0043]).
Cabilli et al., Biesheuvel et al., and Trombetta et al. are all directed towards the same field of endeavor of beverage capsules used in a beverage production device for making beverages. The claim does not specify any particular dimensions, e.g. diameter of the capsule and/or capsule holder of the beverage production device which can vary in view of Trombetta et al. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the capsule/beverage production device combination of Cabilli et al. such that the capsule is complementary to a capsule holder of the beverage production device as taught by Bieshevuel et al. in order to provide a good sealing engagement between the capsule and the capsule holder in which the capsule is inserted.
Further regarding Claim 2, in the event that it can be argued that the capsule of Cabilli et al. in view of Biesheuvel et al. and Trombetta et al. is not capable of extraction of the beverage using centrifugal forces, Nordqvist et al. discloses a capsule (capsule 1) containing a beverage substance. The capsule comprises a body (body 5) defining an enclosure wherein the body (body 5) comprises a bottom end and an open end, a flange like rim (inner flange portion 6) extending outwardly from the body (body 5), an upper wall attached to the flange like rim (inner flange portion 6) to cover an opening of the body (body 5) at the open end, and an annular ring (outer flange portion 7) that is provided on the flange like rim (inner flange portion 6) wherein the annular ring (outer flange portion 7) has an inner diameter that is greater than or equal to the diameter of the upper wall (cover 3) (‘417, FIGS. 3-5) (‘417, Paragraphs [0070]-[0071]). Nordqvist et al. further discloses the capsule being configured to extraction of the beverage using centrifugal forces (‘317, Paragraphs [0056] and [0072).
Both Cabilli et al. and Nordqvist et al. are directed towards the same field of endeavor of beverage capsules used in beverage production devices for preparing beverages. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method of making the beverage of Cabilli et al. and use the capsule in a beverage preparation device using centrifugal forces since Nordqvist et al. teaches that there was known utility in the beverage capsule art to make a beverage using a capsule and performing centrifugal forces.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cabilli et al. US 2018/0229923 as applied to claim 3 in view of Yoakim et al. US 2007/0202237 (herein referred to as “Yoakim et al. ‘237”).
Regarding Claims 4-5, Cabilli et al. is silent regarding the annular ring being attached by sealing or welding.
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 Cabilli 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 Cabilli 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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cabilli et al. US 2018/0229923 as applied to claim 1 in view of Hentzel et al. US 2016/0244237.
Regarding Claim 8, Cabilli et al. is silent regarding the annular ring having an outer diameter that is smaller than or equal to the diameter of the upper wall.
Hentzel et al. discloses a capsule (container 10) containing a beverage substance. The capsule (container 10) comprises a body (sidewall 12) defining an enclosure wherein the body (sidewall 12) comprises a bottom end (second lid 20) and an open end (opening 15), a flange like rim (flange 14) extending outwardly from the body (sidewall 12), and an upper wall (upper lid 18) attached to the flange like rim (flange 14) to cover an opening of the body (sidewall 12) at the open end (opening 15) (‘237, Paragraphs [0049]-[0052]). Hentzel et al. further discloses extending a portion of the upper wall (upper lid 18) to include a tab provided in a folded position overlying the remainder of the upper wall (upper lid 18) wherein the tab can be unfolded to extend beyond the perimeter of the upper wall (upper lid 18) of the flange like rim (flange 14) (‘237, FIG. 1B) (‘237, Paragraph [0066]). The proposed combination of Cabilli et al. modified with Hentzel et al. would result in the annular ring having an outer diameter that is smaller than the diameter of the upper wall via the extension of a portion of the upper wall via the tab 26 of Hentzel et al. It is noted that the claim does not require an entirety of the annular ring having an outer diameter than is smaller than or equal to an entirety of the diameter of the upper wall. Any portion of the upper wall that has a greater diameter than the outer diameter of the annular ring reads on the claimed limitations of Claim 8.
PNG
media_image2.png
684
686
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Both Cabilli et al. and Hentzel et al. 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 Cabilli et al. and extend a diameter of the upper wall via the tabs disposed on the upper wall as taught by Hentzel et al. such that the annular ring of Cabilli et al. has an outer diameter that is smaller than the diameter of the upper wall in order to allow the user to pull the upper wall (upper lid 18) from the flange like rim (flange 14) (‘237, Paragraph [0066]) for easier disposal of the upper wall/lid.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cabilli et al. US 2018/0229923 as applied to claim 1 in view of Andreae et al. US 2017/0008694.
Regarding Claim 11, Cabilli et al. is silent regarding the annular ring having a Young’s modulus of at least 1000 MPa.
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]).
PNG
media_image3.png
868
1451
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Andreae et al. also 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 Cabilli et al. modified with 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 Cabilli 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 Cabilli 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.
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.
Both Cabilli et al. and Andreae et al. are directed towards the same field of endeavor of beverage capsules used in a beverage production device for preparing beverages. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the beverage capsule of Cabilli et al. and construct the annular ring out of compostable bioplastics as taught by Andreae 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). Andreae et al. teaches that there was known utility in the beverage capsule art to construct the annular ring out of bioplastics.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cabilli et al. US 2018/0229923 as applied to claim 1 in view of van der Vliet et al. US 2017/0190451.
Regarding Claim 13, Cabilli et al. is silent regarding the biodegradable and/or compostable material of the annular ring being different from a material of the body.
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_image4.png
899
1011
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Van der Vliet et al. further discloses the material of the annular ring being different from the material of the body (‘451, Paragraph [0033]).
Both Cabilli et al. and van der Vliet et al. are directed towards the same field of endeavor of beverage capsules used in a beverage production device for making beverages. 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 Cabilli et al. to be made from a material that is different from the material of the body as taught by van der Vliet 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). van der Vliet et al. teaches that there was known utility in the beverage capsule art to construct the annular ring out of a material that is different from the material of the body.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cabilli et al. US 2018/0229923 as applied to claim 1 in view of van der Vliet et al. US 2017/0190451 and Yoakim et al. US 2011/0041702.
Regarding Claim 14, Cabilli et al. is silent regarding the flange like rim being integral with the body wherein the bottom end and the open end are spaced apart in an axial direction wherein the flange like rim and the upper wall extends transversely to the axial direction.
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 bottom end and the open end are 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 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]). Yoakim et al. further discloses the flange like rim being integral with the body (‘702, Paragraphs [0032] and [0037]).
Cabilli et al., van der Vliet et al., and Yoakim et al. are all directed towards the same field of endeavor of beverage capsules used in a beverage production device for making beverages. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the capsule of Cabilli 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.).
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cabilli et al. US 2018/0229923 as applied to claim 1 above in view of Bartoli et al. US 2014/0026761.
Regarding Claims 16-17, Cabilli et al. is silent regarding the body having an convex portion for enclosing the beverage substance wherein the convex portion extends from the bottom end to the open end of the body.
Bartoli et al. discloses a capsule (capsule 101) containing a beverage substance (coffee) (‘761, Paragraph [0080]). The capsule (capsule 101) comprises a body (casing 102) defining an enclosure wherein the body (casing 102) comprises a bottom end (base wall 103) and an open end, a flange like rim (first edge 107) extending outwardly from the body (casing 102), and an upper wall (covering element 8) attached to the flange like rim (first edge 107) (‘761, Paragraph [0054]) wherein the body (casing 102) has a convex portion for enclosing the beverage substance wherein the convex portion extends from the bottom end (base wall 103) to the open end of the body (casing 102) (‘761, FIG. 6) (‘761, Paragraph [0077]).
PNG
media_image5.png
861
867
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Both Cabilli et al. and Bartoli et al. are directed towards the same field of endeavor of beverage capsules used in beverage production devices for making a beverage. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the capsule of Cabilli et al. and construct the body with a convex portion for enclosing the beverage substance wherein the convex potion extends from the bottom end to the open end of the body as taught by Bartoli et al. since the configuration of the claimed body of the capsule 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 body of the capsule was significant in view of In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (MPEP § 2144.04.IV.B.). Bartoli et al. teaches that there was known utility in the beverage capsule art to construct the body with a convex portion extending from the bottom end to the open end of the body.
Response to Arguments
Examiner notes that the previous Drawing Objections have been withdrawn in view of the amendments.
Examiner notes that new Drawing Objections have been made in view of the amendments.
Examiner notes that the previous Claim Objections have been withdrawn in view of the amendments.
Examiner notes that the previous indefiniteness rejections under 35 USC 112(b) have been withdrawn in view of the amendments.
Examiner notes that applicant argues on Pages 6-7 of the Remarks with respect to the previous indefiniteness rejection of Claim 10 under 35 USC 112(b) regarding the term “flush” that the skilled artisan would understand the scope of the limitations “wherein the annular ring is flush with an outer edge of the flange like rim” as described on Page 7, lines 10-15 and Page 14, lines 19-24 and as illustrated in FIG. 3 of the application as originally filed and that one of ordinary skill in the art would be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention of Claim 10. Examiner notes that this particular argument is found persuasive. Therefore, the previous indefiniteness rejection of Claim 10 under 35 USC 112(b) has been withdrawn in view of applicant’s explanation.
Examiner notes that new indefiniteness rejections of Claims 1-2 under 35 USC 112(b) have been made in view of the amendments.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the previous anticipation rejections under 35 USC 102 to Andreae et al. have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claims now recite the limitation “wherein the annular ring has an inner diameter that is greater than or equal to the diameter of the upper wall.” FIG. 10 of Andreae et al. teaches the annular ring having an inner diameter that is smaller than the diameter of the upper wall. Therefore, the previous anticipation rejections under 35 USC 102 to Andreae et al. have been withdrawn in view of the amendments.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the previous obviousness rejections under 35 USC 103 to van der Vliet et al. in view of Yoakim et al. have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claims now recite the limitation “wherein the annular ring has an inner diameter that is greater than or equal to the diameter of the upper wall.” Van der Vliet et al. does not teach the annular ring having an inner diameter that is greater than or equal to the diameter of the upper wall. Therefore, the previous obviousness rejections under 35 USC 103(a) to Van der Vliet et al. in view of Yoakim et al. have been withdrawn in view of the amendments.
Applicant's arguments filed April 20, 2026 with respect to the anticipation rejections under 35 USC 102 to Cabilli have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on Pages 7-8 of the Remarks with respect to Claim 1 that FIG. 7 of Cabilli shows cover 16, which corresponds to the claimed upper wall and the inner diameter of lock ring 150, which corresponds to the claimed annular ring, wherein the inner diameter of lock ring 150 is less than the outer diameter of the cover 16. Applicant points to Paragraph [0060] of Cabilli describing that lock ring 150…is fitted on the outside of the mouth part 144 of the body 14 to create a groove in which the edge of cover 16 is gripped possibly with peripheral rim 162 if present and fastened/pinched between the ring 150 and the mouth part 144 of body 14. Applicant argues that for the cover 16 to be pinched between the ring 150 and the mouth part 144 of the body 14 the outer diameter of the cover 16 must be larger than the inner diameter of lock ring 150.
Examiner argues the embodiment of FIGS. 7-8 of Cabilli et al. relied upon in the rejection clearly shows the annular ring (lock ring 150) having the same diameter/a slightly larger diameter as that of the upper wall (cover 16) wherein peripheral rim 162 of upper wall (cover 16) is disposed inside of the annular ring (lock ring 150) (‘923, FIGS. 7-8) (‘923, Paragraph [0062]). Therefore, this argument is not found persuasive.
Applicant argues on Page 8 of the Remarks with respect to Claim 2 that the phrase “adapted to” does not simply mean capable of but required purposeful designing and structure to achieve the recited functionality. Applicant contends that cartridge 10 of Cabilli is neither configured for nor adapted for extraction of the beverage using centrifugal forces and water and/or steam is introduced into the cartridge 10 through cover 16 and product flows out of the cartridge through bottom wall 142.
Examiner argues Claim 2 does not recite the phrase “adapted to.” Applicant argues limitations that are not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. Furthermore, the limitations “wherein the capsule is complementary to a capsule holder of the beverage production device of the beverage production device wherein the capsule is configured for extraction of the beverage using centrifugal forces” are intended use limitations which the prior art is only required to be capable of performing these intended use limitations, which Cabilli et al. is capable of performing these intended use limitations. Nevertheless, the secondary references of Biesheuvel et al., Trombetta et al., and Nordqvist et al. are being relied upon in an alternative rejection to explicitly show that capsules such as the one disclosed by Cabilli et al. are capable of performing the claimed intended use limitations. It is noted that the claims do not specify the particular dimensions of the capsule holder of the beverage production device.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bambagioni et al. US 2020/0391935 discloses a capsule complementary to a capsule holder of a beverage production device (‘935, FIG. 1) (‘935, Paragraph [0053]).
Dijkstra et al. US 2018/0297776 discloses a capsule having a shape complementary to a capsule holder of a beverage production device (‘776, FIG. 1) (‘776, Paragraph [0061]).
Wicks et al. US 2019/0002192 discloses a capsule comprising a sidewall (sidewall 313) having a convex region near the top of the capsule (‘192, FIG. 3) (‘192, Paragraph [0074]).
Perentes et al. US 2015/0320254 discloses a capsule comprising a sidewall (body 2) having a convex portion of variable depth wherein the capsules comprise different volumes but a same insertion diameter (‘254, Paragraph [0060]).
Capitani US 2014/0083873 discloses a capsule comprising a sidewall (body) that is convex/curved (‘873, Paragraph [0023]).
Diguini US 2013/0040021 discloses a capsule comprising a convex portion or concave portion (‘021, Paragraph [0045]).
Yoakim et al. US 2012/0171334 discloses a set of different capsules having a body that is convex along its entire surface and having a variable depth in the set (‘334, Paragraph [0016]).
Heijdel et al. US 2011/0027425 discloses a capsule comprising a body (cavity sidewall) having a convex shape (‘425, Paragraph [0036]).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights