DETAILED ACTION
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 present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 14, 15, and 23 – 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over K-fee systems EP 3 656 700 (see translation) in view of Schmidt et al. US 2017/0342261 as further evidenced by Thibado US 2017/0144813 in view of Yoakim et al. US 2011/0041702.
Regarding claims 14, 26, and 29, K-fee discloses a container capable of preparing a liquid foodstuff (coffee) (paragraph [0006]) which comprises a capsule-shaped base body (2) with a cavity open on one side (fig. 1), into which cavity a powder (coffee) is filled, and a lid (4) with which the open side of the cavity is closed (paragraph [0038]).
K-fee further discloses the capsule-shaped base body would be made of a compostable material which would comprise gelatin, cellulose, and/or a mixture of both (paragraph [0008]) as well as water (1%) (paragraph [0013]) and a salt (paragraph [0016]). Because K-fee discloses (paragraph [0008]) that the body can consist of gelatin, cellulose, and/or mixtures thereof, when gelatin is selected, K-fee teaches 100% gelatin and 0% cellulose and in the alternative when cellulose is selected the K-fee teaches 100% cellulose and 0% gelatin, therefore taken as a whole K-fee suggests 0-100% gelatin and 0-100% cellulose and that the gelatin and cellulose can be used in combination within the claimed ranges, that is 10 – 90% by weight of at least one protein binder and 2 – 75% cellulose.
Claim 14 differs from K-fee in the specific weight of the at least one salt.
Schmidt discloses that the addition of salts (magnesium silicate - talc) in the form of a nucleating agent was common and conventional when making a biodegradable, i.e., a compostable composition and that a preferred concentration would be 5% by weight (paragraph [0070]). As further evidenced by Thibado the addition of these salts (talc) as nucleating agents when making compostable materials, and in particular food packaging containers, which is what the capsule-shaped base body is, accelerates the crystallization of said material from which the packaging is made, to add strength thereto, and that an appropriate amount of such salts would be between 1 and about 10% by weight. To therefore modify K-fee if required to use an amount of salt between 0.3 and 15% by weight as claimed to accelerate the crystallization of the compostable material as taught by Schmidt as further evidenced by Thibado would have been an obvious matter of choice and/or design to the ordinarily skilled artisan.
Claim 14 now differs from K-fee in view of Schmidt as further evidenced by Thibado in the capsule-shaped base body comprises a collar extending around the open side of the cavity open at one side, at least one sealing lip arranged on the collar, the at least one sealing lip protruding from the collar and made of a same material as the capsule-shaped base body.
Yoakim discloses a container (capsule 1) capable of the preparation of a liquid foodstuff which capsule comprises a capsule-shaped base body (2) made from a compostable material (cellulose based material) (paragraph [0039]) with a cavity open on one side into which cavity a powder (roast and ground coffee) can be is filled and a lid (delivery wall 7) with which an open side of the cavity open on one side is closed (paragraph [0046] – [0048] and fig. 1). Yoakim further discloses the capsule-shaped base body comprises a collar (rim 3) extending around the open side of the cavity open at one side and at least one sealing lip (40) is arranged on the collar (fig. 1 and 9). The at least one sealing lip protrudes from the collar and is made of a same material as the capsule-shaped base body(made of the same material) (paragraph [0043] and[0056]). Yoakim is providing at least one sealing lip protruding from the collar for the art recognized function of providing a further seal to the collar extending around the open side of the cavity which is the applicant’s reason for doing so as well. To therefore modify K-fee in view of Schmidt as further evidenced by Thibado and provide at least one sealing lip that protrudes from the collar and made from the same material as the capsule-shaped base body as taught by Yoakim would have been an obvious matter of choice and/or design to the ordinarily skilled artisan for providing a further seal to the collar.
Regarding claim 15, K-fee discloses the lid would comprise the same compostable material as the base body (paragraph [0009]).
Regarding claim 23, K-fee discloses the cellulose material would be cellulose fibers (paragraph [0026]).
Regarding claim 24, K-fee discloses the at least one protein binder would comprise an animal protein (paragraph [0011]).
Regarding claim 25, K-fee discloses the at least one protein binder would comprise a vegetable protein binder (vegetable gelatin) (paragraph [0011]).
Regarding claim 27, K-fee discloses the animal protein binder would be gelatin (paragraph [0011]).
Regarding claim 28, K-fee in view of Schmidt as further evidenced by Thibado in view of Yoakim discloses the vegetable protein binder would be sunflower (‘261, paragraph [0071]).
Claims 16, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over K-fee systems EP 3 656 700 (see translation) in view of Schmidt et al. US 2017/0342261 as further evidenced by Thibado US 2017/0144813 in view of Yoakim et al. US 2011/0041702 in view of Aspira nonfood DE 20 2021 100 033 (see translation).
Claim 16 differs from K-fee in view of Schmidt as further evidenced by Thibado in view of Yoakim in the lid being fastened to the base body by means of a squeeze seal.
Aspira discloses a container (capsule 10) capable of preparing a liquid foodstuff which comprises a capsule-shaped base body (housing 12) with a cavity open on one side into which cavity a powder (coffee) (paragraph [0010]) of the foodstuff would be filled and a lid (14) with which the open side of the cavity would be closed (paragraph [0029] and fig. 1). Aspira further discloses the lid would be fastened to said body by means of a squeeze seal (sealing ring 26). Aspira is using a squeeze seal for the art recognized function of in order to simplify construction of the container by using a cost-effective design without the expense of additional sealing measures (paragraph [0044]), which is believed to be applicant’s reason for doing so as well. To therefore modify K-fee in view of Schmidt as further evidenced by Thibado in view of Yoakim and fasten the lid to the base body using a squeeze seal to simplify the design and reduce expenses as taught by Aspira would have an obvious matter of choice and/or design to the ordinarily skilled artisan.
Claim 18 differs from K-fee in view of Schmidt as further evidenced by Thibado in view of Yoakim in the lid having at least one perforation.
Aspira discloses the lid (14) of the container would have been perforated (inlet holes 14d), that said perforations would be arranged centrally within the lid (paragraph [0034] and fig. 2). Aspira further discloses that the lid comprises said perforations for the art recognized purpose of allowing an extraction fluid to be supplied very quickly and evenly to a contained beverage ingredient which would avoid the need to additionally perforate the lid and would ensure a balanced quality of coffee which is applicant’s reason for doing so as well. To therefore provide the lid of K-fee in view of Schmidt as further evidenced by Thibado in view of Yoakim with at least one perforation to ensure a balanced quality of coffee as taught by Aspira would have been an obvious matter of choice and/or design to the ordinarily skilled artisan.
Claim 20 differs from K-fee in view of Schmidt as further evidenced by Thibado in view of Yoakim in the base body having a plurality of perforations on a side which is substantially opposite the open side of the base body.
Aspira discloses the base body would have a plurality of perforations (22) on a side which is substantially opposite the open side of said base body (paragraph [0032] and fig. 5) and that the function of said plurality of perforations is to allow the passage of water through the capsule without having to further pierce the base body (paragraph [0018]) which is applicant’s reason for doing so as well. To therefore modify K-fee in view of Schmidt as further evidenced by Thibado in view of Yoakim and provide the base body with a plurality of perforations on a side which is substantially opposite the open side of said base body for the art recognized function of allowing the passage of water through the capsule without having to further pierce the base body as taught by Aspira would have been an obvious matter of choice and/or design to the ordinarily skilled artisan.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over K-fee systems EP 3 656 700 (see translation) in view of Schmidt et al. US 2017/0342261 as further evidenced by Thibado US 2017/0144813 in view of Yoakim et al. US 2011/0041702 in view of Mariller US 2011/0283891.
Claim 19 differs from K-fee in view of Schmidt as further evidenced by Thibado in view of Yoakim in the lid having at least one area with a reduced thickness, so that when a predefined pressure is applied in the cavity, the at least one area bursts open to form at least one perforation.
Mariller discloses a container capable of preparing a liquid foodstuff (coffee) (paragraph [0001]) which comprises a capsule-shaped base body (1) with a cavity open on one side (fig. 1 and 2), into which cavity a powder or extract of the foodstuff (2) is filled, a lid (5) with which the open side of the cavity is closed (paragraph [0038]), and the capsule-shaped base body would be made of a compostable material (biodegradable) (paragraph [0010] – [0017]). Mariller further discloses the lid (5) would have at least one area with a reduced thickness (membrane 4), and that when a predefined pressure is applied in the cavity, the at least one area bursts open to form at least one perforation (paragraph [0020] – [0024]). Mariller is providing the lid of the container capable of preparing a liquid foodstuff with a lid that has at least one area with a reduced thickness for the art recognized function of controlling the bursting with respect to a bursting zone as well as making bursting of the lid easier which is applicant’s reason for doing so as well. To therefore modify the lid of K-fee in view of Schmidt as further evidenced by Thibado in view of Yoakim and provide at least one area with a reduced thickness to better control the bursting and dispensing of a liquid foodstuff as taught by Mariller would have been an obvious matter of design and/or choice to the ordinarily skilled artisan.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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 CHAIM A SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-7369. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 09:00-18:00.
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 please telephone the Examiner.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nikki Dees can be reached at (571) 270-3435. 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.
/C.S./
Chaim SmithExaminer, Art Unit 1791 07 April 2026
/VIREN A THAKUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792