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 of Group I: Claims 1-9 in the reply filed on October 30, 2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 10-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
An action on the merits of elected Claims 1-9 is provided below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on November 27, 2023 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 following claimed features must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
The perforator of a capsules opening device as claimed in at least Claim 1.
The convex portion of the bottom portion as claimed in at least Claim 6. Applicant discloses FIGS. 2-3 showing concave portion 103c protruding within the inner cavity 100c (Specification, Page 16, lines 7-12) and that alternatively bottom 103 having a convex portion 103c which convex portion protrudes outwards of the cavity (Specification, Page 16, lines 13-15). However, none of the figures shows the embodiment wherein the bottom portion has a convex portion. FIGS. 2-3 only shows the bottom portion having a concave portion.
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 1-9 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 “in particular” in line 6. The phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a beverage” in line 6. It is unclear if this refers to “beverages” recited in Claim 1, line 1 or to an entirely different beverage. For purposes of examination Examiner interprets the claim to refer to the same beverage.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “additivated liquid” in line 7. It is unclear what is meant by the term “additivated.”
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the pressure” in line 13. It is unclear if this refers to “a predetermined pressure” recited in Claim 1, lines 8-9 or to an entirely different pressure.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “an opening configured to be in use closed determining an insulation of the inner cavity from the outer environment” in lines 1-2. It is unknown what is meant by this limitation.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “an opening” in line 1. It is unclear if this refers to “an opening” recited in Claim 1, line 12 or to an entirely different opening.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “an insulation” in line 6. It is unclear if this refers to “an insulation” recited in Claim 2, line 2.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the opening being configured to allow an introduction of said substance within said inner cavity and being configured to be closed by means of at least a welding and/or folding and/or crimping and/or gluing operation destined to seal the opening for allowing an insulation of the inner cavity from the outer environment” in lines 4-7. It is unclear if this limitation requires the opening to be closed on itself. If so, it is unclear what constitutes an “opening” if the opening is closed. For purposes of examination Examiner interprets the claim to require a cover/lid disposed over an opening of the capsule to close the opening of the capsule.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “wherein said insulation is sufficient to determine a maintenance of the predetermined pressure for a predetermined period of time” in lines 1-2. It is unclear what is meant by “said insulation is sufficient to determine a maintenance of the predetermined pressure.”
Claim 4 recites the limitation “wherein at least one among the lateral wall, the head portion or the bottom portion is realized in metallic material” in lines 1-2. Claim 4 also recites “realized as” in line 11. It is unclear what is meant by the term “realized in” in the context of the claims. For purposes of examination Examiner interprets “realized in” to mean “made from.”
Claim 4 recites the limitation “in particular” in line 6 as well as in line 7. The phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 5 recites the limitation “at least a perimeter ring substantially developing itself on a plane and/or detecting a transversal section higher with respect to a transversal section detected by the lateral wall” in lines 3-5. It is unclear what is meant by the phrase “substantially developing itself.” It is also unclear what is meant by the term “detecting” in the context of the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “preferably” in line 7. The phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 6 recites the limitation “wherein the convex portion extends itself outwards of said cavity and/or detects a corresponding concave portion of said cavity” in lines 2-3. It is unclear what is meant by the term “detects” in the context of a convex portion “detecting” a concave portion.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “in particular” in line 3. The phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 7 recites the limitation “a pressure lower than the limits given by the European rule “Pressure Equipment Device” 2014/68/UE” in lines 5-6. It is unknown what these European rule pressure limits are.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “in particular” in line 3. The phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 9 recites the limitation “a radiofrequency identification circuit” in line 3. It is unclear if this refers to “a radiofrequency identification circuit” recited in Claim 9, line 2 or to an entirely different radiofrequency identification circuit. For purposes of examination Examiner interprets the claim to refer to the same radiofrequency identification circuit.
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 1-5, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Novak et al. US 2011/0226343.
Regarding Claim 1, Novak et al. discloses a beverage capsule (cartridge 4) comprising a lateral wall, a head portion (top of cartridge 4 to which lid 45 is attached), and a bottom portion (container bottom 44) wherein the head portion (top of cartridge 4 to which lid 45 is attached) and the bottom portion (container bottom 44) are joined to the lateral wall. The lateral wall, the head portion (top of cartridge 4 to which lid 45 is attached), and the bottom portion (container bottom 44) define an inner cavity in use insulated from the outer environment. The beverage capsule (cartridge 4) is capable of withstanding within the inner cavity a predetermined pressure produced by a substance contained within the beverage capsule. It is noted that the claimed predetermined pressure is not specified. Novak et al. further discloses the head portion (top of cartridge 4 to which lid 45 is attached) and the bottom portion (container bottom 44) comprising an opening portion capable of being perforated by a perforator (piercing elements 34, 35) of a capsules opening device (cartridge chamber 3) determining an opening of the inner cavity to cause an outflow of the substance (‘343, FIGS. 5 and 11) (‘343, Paragraphs [0045] and [0060]).
PNG
media_image1.png
896
1329
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Further regarding Claim 1, the limitations “configured to contain, in use, a substance at least partially fluid and/or powdery, in particular destined to produce a beverage in the form of additivated liquid of which the substance represents a determined part in weight” “wherein said capsule for beverages is configured to withstand within said inner cavity a predetermined pressure produced by said substance,” and “wherein at least one among said head portion and/or said bottom portion and/or said lateral wall comprises an opening portion configured to be perforated by a perforator of a capsules opening device determining an opening of the inner cavity destined to cause an outflow of the substance, said outflow being at least partially produced by the pressure within said inner cavity” 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, Novak et al. explicitly discloses the beverage capsule containing a substance at least partially fluid (concentrated syrups) and/or powdery (powdered or liquid medicinal materials such as powdered vitamins, minerals, bioactive ingredients or flowable particles of zeolite) to produce a beverage of “addivated liquid” of which the substance concentrated syrups or powdered or liquid medicinal materials such as powdered vitamins, minerals, bioactive ingredients) represents a determined part in weight (‘343, Paragraphs [0043] and [0057]) Novak et al. also explicitly discloses the beverage capsule (cartridge 4) being capable of withstanding within the inner cavity a predetermined pressure produced by the substance (‘343, Paragraph [0045]). Novak et al. also discloses the head portion (top of cartridge 4 to which lid 45 is attached) and the bottom portion (container bottom 44) comprising an opening portion capable of being perforated by a perforator (piercing elements 34, 35) of a capsules opening device (cartridge chamber 3) to make an opening of the inner cavity for causing an outflow of the substance (‘343, Paragraphs [0045], [0060], and [0066]) wherein the outflow is at least partially produced by the pressure within the inner cavity (‘343, FIG. 5) (‘343, Paragraph [0045]).
PNG
media_image2.png
609
1205
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Novak et al. discloses an opening (top of cartridge) capable of being closed (via lid 45) to insulate the inner cavity from the outer environment (‘343, FIG. 11).
Further regarding Claim 2, the limitations “optionally wherein the head portion is a portion defining said opening” are optional limitations that are not required to be taught by the prior art. Nevertheless, Novak et al. teaches the head portion being a portion defining the opening (that is sealed by lid 45) (‘343, FIG. 11).
Further regarding Claim 2, the limitations “configured to be closed,” “being configured to allow an introduction of said substance within said inner cavity and being configured to be closed by means of at least a welding and/or folding and/or crimping and/or gluing operation destined to seal the opening for allowing an insulation of the inner cavity from the outer environment” are intended use limitations and as such are rejected for the same reasons regarding intended use enumerated in the rejections of Claim 1 above. Nevertheless, Novak et al. teaches the opening being closed by the lid by welding (thermal seal with a foil lid) (‘343, Paragraph [0075]).
Regarding Claim 3, the limitations “said insulation is sufficient to determine a maintenance of the predetermined pressure for a predetermined period of time, said predetermined period of time being optionally at least equal to 1 week, or 3 weeks, or 1 month or 3 months, or 5 months or 9 months or 1 year or 1 year and a half or 2 years or 3 years” does not specify any particular period of time since the listed times are optional limitations. Any amount of insulation from the external environment at any predetermined pressure reads on this limitation. Novak et al. teaches thermally sealing the cartridge with a foil lid (‘343, Paragraph [0075]), which would necessarily insulate the contents disposed within the interior cavity of the beverage capsule from the external environment.
Regarding Claim 4, Novak et al. discloses the lateral wall, the head portion (top of cartridge 4 to which lid 45 is attached), and the bottom portion (container bottom 44) being made of metallic material (‘343, Paragraph [0069]) wherein the lateral wall comprises a first portion (portion of sidewall adjacent to lid 45) and a second portion (portion of sidewall adjacent to container bottom 44) wherein the first portion (portion of sidewall adjacent to lid 45) is directly joined to the head portion (top of cartridge 4 to which lid 45 is attached) and the second portion (portion of sidewall adjacent to container bottom 44) of the lateral wall is directly joined to the bottom portion (container bottom 44). The lateral wall, the head portion, and the bottom portion are made from a single sheet of metallic material (‘343, Paragraph [0069]).
Further regarding Claim 4, the limitations “optionally said lateral wall, said head portion, and said bottom portion being realized in metallic material, optionally integrally in metallic material, optionally wherein said metallic material comprises aluminum or its ally and/or steel” and “optionally by means of folding and/or deformation” are optional limitations that are not required to be taught by the prior art.
Further regarding Claim 4, the limitations “or the lateral wall is joined by means of a welding and/or folding and/or crimping and/or gluing process to the head portion and/or to the bottom portion” are optional limitations by virtue of the phrase “or” since Novak et al. teaches the limitations regarding the beverage cartridge components being made from a single sheet of metallic material (‘343, Paragraph [0069]).
Regarding Claim 5, Novak et al. discloses the bottom portion (container bottom 44) having a substantially planar wall and the beverage capsule comprising a longitudinal axis passing through the inner cavity which longitudinal axis is substantially orthogonal with respect to at least part of the bottom portion (container bottom 44) wherein the capsule mainly extends itself along the longitudinal axis (‘343, FIG. 11).
Further regarding Claim 5, the limitations “or wherein the bottom portion presents at least a perimeter ring substantially developing itself on a plant and/or detecting a transversal section higher with respect to a transversal section detected by the lateral wall and/or protruding outwards with respect to said lateral wall” and “preferably all of the bottom portion and/or being the axis around which said lateral wall develops” are optional limitations that are not required to be taught by the prior art.
Regarding Claim 7, Novak et al. discloses the capsule containing the substance (flowable particles of zeolite) wherein the substance (flowable particles of zeolite) is a substance capable of generating pressure (zeolite particles releases carbon dioxide gas) when contained in the inner cavity (‘343, Paragraph [0043]).
Further regarding Claim 7, the limitations “said substance being in particular a substance configured to generate said pressure by state transformation” and “optionally wherein said pressure is a pressure lower than 0.5 bar and/or is a pressure lower than the limits given by the European rule “Pressure Equipment Device” 2014/68/UE and/or wherein the capsule for beverages is configured to withstand at an inner pressure at least equal to 100 bar, or at least equal to 150 bar, or at least equal to 200 bar” are optional limitations that are not required to be taught by the prior art. Nevertheless, Novak et al. teaches the substance (flowable particles of zeolite) being capable of generating pressure by state transformation (zeolite particles release carbon dioxide gas) (‘343, Paragraph [0043]).
Regarding Claim 9, Novak et al. discloses an identification device comprising a radiofrequency identification circuit (RFID) fixed to the beverage capsule (‘343, Paragraph [0064]).
Further regarding Claim 9, the limitations “a radiofrequency identification circuit being irremovably or irremovably in use associated” are optional limitations that do not need to be met by the prior art since Novak et al. teaches the limitations after the term “and/or” of “fixed to the capsule for beverages (‘343, Paragraph [0064]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Novak et al. US 2011/0226343 as applied to claim 7 above as evidenced by Liu et al. US 2019/0133153.
It is noted that normally, only one reference should be used in making a rejection under 35 USC 102. However, a 35 USC 102 rejection over multiple references is held to be proper when the extra reference is cited to show that a characteristic not disclosed in the reference is inherent (MPEP § 2131.01.). To serve as an anticipation when the reference is silent about the asserted inherent characteristic, such gap in the reference may be filled with recourse to extrinsic evidence. Such evidence must make clear that the missing descriptive matter is necessarily present in the thing described in the reference and that it would be so recognized by persons of ordinary skill in view of Continental Can Co. USA v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1268, 20 USPQ2d 1746, 1749-50 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (MPEP § 2131.01.III.).
Regarding Claim 8, Novak et al. discloses the substance comprising an at least partially powdery substance (flowable particles of zeolite) wherein the substance comprises a cooling material of solid carbon dioxide (carbon dioxide source 41) that causes a gas formation (‘343, Paragraphs [0043]-[0044]).
Further regarding Claim 8, the limitations “optionally a mineralization mix configured to cause a water mineralization in particular a water mineralization for human consumption wherein said mineralization mix comprises at least one among magnesium carbonate or bicarbonate and/or calcium carbonate or bicarbonate and/or comprises at least one among magnesium, potassium, calcium, fluorine, iron, sodium, sulphur, silicon minerals” and “optionally dry ice or solid carbon dioxide, destined to cause a gas formation, optionally carbon dioxide gas, by state transformation and/or comprises a gas optionally a carbon dioxide gas, said gas optionally deriving from a state transformation of a cooled and/or cooling and/or originally cooled material, optionally deriving from a state transformation of dry ice or solid carbon dioxide” are optional limitations that are not required to be taught by the prior art. Nevertheless, Liu et al. provides evidence that it was known in the art that zeolite is a porous aluminosilicate material made from aluminum, oxygen, and silicon combined with metals including sodium, potassium, and magnesium (‘153, Paragraph [0050]).
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Novak et al. US 2011/0226343 as applied to claim 1 above in view of Meelker et al. US 2013/0064936.
Regarding Claim 6, Novak et al. discloses the beverage capsule (cartridge 4) having different sizes, shapes or other configurations (‘343, Paragraph [0064]). However, Novak et al. is silent regarding the particular shape or configuration to have the bottom portion to be a convex portion wherein the convex portion extends itself outwards of the cavity.
Meelker et al. discloses a beverage capsule (cartridge 1) comprising a lateral wall (circumferential wall 1), a head portion (rim portion 7), and a bottom portion (bottom 2) (‘936, FIG. 1) (‘936, Paragraphs [0061]-[0062]) wherein the bottom portion (bottom 2) has any shape of flat, convex, concave, or combinations (‘936, Paragraph [0062]). The beverage capsule is capable of being used in a capsules opening device (coffee machine) having a perforator (relief) for perforating (puncturing) the beverage capsule (‘936, Paragraph [0007[).
Both Novak et al. and Meelker et al. are directed towards the same field of endeavor of beverage capsules used in a capsules opening device in the form of a coffee machine wherein the beverage capsule is perforated. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the shape of the beverage capsule that can have different shapes and configurations of Novak et al. (‘343, Paragraph [0064]) and construct the bottom portion of the beverage capsule to have a convex portion wherein the convex portion extends itself outwards of the cavity as taught by Meelker et al. since the configuration of the claimed bottom portion of the beverage capsule is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence indicating that the particular configuration of the claimed bottom portion of the beverage capsule was significant in view of In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (MPEP § 2144.04.IV.B.). Meelker et al. teaches that there was known utility in the beverage capsule art to make the bottom portion of beverage capsules to have the claimed convex shape.
Further regarding Claim 6, it is noted that the limitations “and/or detects a corresponding concave portion of said cavity” are optional limitations by virtue of the phrase “and/or.” It is also noted that the limitations “detects a corresponding concave portion of said cavity” are also rejected as being unclear in view of the rejections under 35 USC 112(b) above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Boyd et al. US 2002/0048621 discloses a capsule comprising an optical bar code (‘621, FIGS. 1-2) (‘621, Paragraph [0009]).
Putman US 2018/0228314 discloses a capsule comprising a bottom portion (cup bottom 24) having a convex portion (generally dome shaped center bottom wall section 50) (‘314, FIG. 5) (‘314, Paragraph [0046]).
PNG
media_image3.png
947
962
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Kruger et al. US 2018/0222667 discloses a capsule comprising a capsule base having a convex bottom (‘667, FIG. 9) (‘667, Paragraph [0049]).
Garcin et al. US 2016/0362246 discloses a capsule comprising a bottom portion (bottom portion 4) having the form of a short trunk of cone or dome that can be closed or provided with inlet openings wherein the portion comprises one or more convex zones from the point of view of the cavity, i.e. protruding internally towards the cavity (‘246, Paragraph [0090]).
Vanni et al. US 2015/0183576 discloses a capsule comprising a bottom portion (bottom wall 2c) that curves towards the inside of the capsule and is therefore internally convex and externally concave (‘576, FIG. 2) (‘576, Paragraph [0039]) to facilitate deformation of the wall towards the associated perforation device (‘576, Paragraph [0043]).
PNG
media_image4.png
958
998
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Mahlich US 2004/0089158 discloses a capsule (pouch 5) comprising a code (ID code 9) disposed on an upper surface and a lower surface of the capsule (pouch 5) (‘158, Paragraph [0032]).
Favre et al. US 2006/0174769 discloses a capsule comprising a bottom portion (bottom wall 11) having a concave shape (‘769, Paragraph [0025]).
Yoakim et al. US 2011/0041702 discloses a capsule comprising a bottom portion having a ring (‘702, FIG. 1).
Vanni US 2010/0000415 discloses a capsule comprising a head portion having a concave shape (‘415, FIG. 3).
Favre US 5,472,719 discloses a capsule comprising a bottom portion (lower wall 2) having a concave shape (‘719, FIGS. 12A-12B).
Mathias et al. US 2017/0001794 discloses a capsule (‘794, Paragraph [0029]) comprising ground coffee and a means for cooling and/or maintaining the coffee ingredient at a desired temperature using cold inert substances such as liquid nitrogen or solid carbon dioxide that are brought in direct contact with the coffee ingredient or provided in a closed system in contact with or in proximity to the coffee ingredient (‘794, Paragraph [0086]).
Tanner US 4,913,916 discloses a beverage infusion device comprising a gas liquid chamber made of material porous to air and water , a gas liquid chamber containing a source of carbon dioxide and an infusible insoluble dry beverage substance containing soluble food solids, the carbon dioxide source being constructed to release carbon dioxide when the beverage infusion device is immersed in liquid to suspend and agitate the infusible insoluble dry beverage substance to extract the edible food solids from the dry beverage substance.
Suggi Liverani et al. US 2010/0313766 discloses a capsule comprising a bottom portion (end wall 9) having a perimeter ring (anchoring edge 28) enabling a perforating member to be inserted under pressure near the bottom portion (end wall 9) (‘766, FIGS. 16-18) (‘766, Paragraph [0110]).
Sahoo et al. US 2020/0390271 discloses a beverage container containing a liquid medicinal powdered vitamins and minerals (‘271, Paragraph [0137]).
Wiseburgh US 2020/0165052 discloses a beverage container comprising powdered nutritional supplements containing flavors, vitamins, and minerals (‘052, Paragraph [0049]).
Kennedy et al. US 2019/0233201 discloses a beverage preparation powder comprising vitamins, minerals, and/or flavorings (‘201, Paragraph [0237]).
Cafaro et al. US 2018/0155091 discloses a beverage container comprising powdered liquid medicinal materials of vitamins, minerals, pharmaceuticals, and nutraceuticals (‘091, Paragraph [0005]).
Arnaud et al. US 2017/0280750 discloses a capsule comprising a beverage medium including powdered medicinal materials of powdered vitamins, minerals, nutraceuticals (‘750, Paragraph [0049]).
Black et al. US 2017/0224000 discloses a pod comprising a nutritional powder produced from a mixture comprising a vitamin and a mineral (‘000, Paragraph [0103]) wherein the nutritional powder is made from a carbohydrate mineral slurry containing fat soluble vitamins (‘000, Paragraph [0106]).
Black et al. US 2017/0210554 discloses a nutritional powder comprising minerals including calcium, phosphorus, magnesium, iron, zinc, manganese, copper, sodium potassium (‘554, Paragraph [0070]).
Novak et al. US 2013/0129870 discloses a cartridge comprising a powdered beverage concentrate containing powdered vitamins, minerals, and nutraceuticals (‘870, Paragraph [0113]).
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