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 1-11 in the reply filed on January 2, 2026 is acknowledged. Applicant traverses the restriction in anticipation of the possibility of rejoinder. However, applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 12-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 1-11 is provided below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on December 22, 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the limitation “Capsule for preparing a beverage product comprising” in line 1. It appears the claim should recite “A capsule for preparing a beverage product, the capsule comprising” for grammatical purposes.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “Capsule for preparing a beverage product comprising” in line 1. It appears the claim should recite “A capsule for preparing a beverage product, the capsule comprising” for grammatical purposes.
Claims 3-11 all recite the limitation “Capsule according to claim 1.” It appears the claims should all instead recite “The capsule according to claim 1” for grammatical purposes.
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 6-7 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 6 recites the limitation “the outermost layer” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “wherein the absorption ability of the absorption region is provided by a structuring of a portion of the outer region” in lines 2-3. It is unclear what is meant by the phrase “a structuring” in the context of 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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Halliday et al. GB 2 569 624 (cited on Information Disclosure Statement filed December 22, 2023).
Regarding Claim 2, Halliday et al. discloses a capsule (beverage cartridge 1) for preparing a beverage product. The capsule (beverage cartridge 1) comprises a body defining a cavity and a membrane (frangible film or foil material comprising a barcode surface 6 and port surface 4 covering a side of the cartridge) (‘624, Page 4, lines 9-10) having an outer region facing away from the cavity wherein the membrane (frangible film or foil material comprising barcode surface 6 and port surface 4) comprises a code region (barcode surface 6) located at the outer region, the code region (barcode surface 6) including a code (barcode 5) carrying capsule information which code (barcode 5) is optically detectable (‘624, FIG. 1) (‘624, Page 5, lines 6-30). It is noted that the claim does not specify any particular boundaries of the code region other than the code region is disposed at the outer region of the membrane, which is shown in the embodiments depicted in FIGS. 1 and 3. The outer region comprises an absorption region (port surface 4) having a moisture absorption ability (port surface 4 is made of hydrophilic material) higher than the moisture absorption ability of at least part of the rest of the outer region (circumferential portion of frangible film or film material containing barcode surface 6 that is made of hydrophobic material) (‘624, FIG. 1) (‘624, Page 6, lines 8-14). The disclosure of the outer region/outer circumference of the frangible film or foil comprising port surface 4 being made of a hydrophilic material and the barcode surface 4 necessarily reads on the moisture absorption ability of the absorption region (port surface 4) being higher than the moisture absorption ability of at least part of the rest of the outer region (barcode surface 6).
PNG
media_image1.png
805
1257
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Further regarding Claim 2, the limitations “for preparing a beverage product” “configured to contain a comestible product,” and “configured to be fastened to the body so as to close the 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, Halliday et al. discloses the capsule being used to prepare a beverage product (‘624, Page 5, lines 19-23), the capsule having a comestible (beverage ingredient) contained therein (‘624, Page 5, lines 12-17) and the membrane (frangible film or foil material covering a side of the cartridge) fasted to the body to close the cavity (‘624, FIG. 1) (‘624, Page 4, lines 9-10).
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, 3-4, 7-9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Halliday et al. GB 2 569 624 (cited on Information Disclosure Statement filed December 22, 2023) in view of Vidal et al. US 2020/0140187, Arredondo et al. US 2002/0031970, and Zhao et al. US 2018/0119361.
Regarding Claim 1, Halliday et al. discloses a capsule (beverage cartridge 1) for preparing a beverage product. The capsule (beverage cartridge 1) comprises a body defining a cavity and a membrane (frangible film or foil material comprising a barcode surface 6 and port surface 4 covering a side of the cartridge) (‘624, Page 4, lines 9-10) having an outer region facing away from the cavity wherein the membrane (frangible film or foil material comprising barcode surface 6 and port surface 4) comprises a code region (barcode surface 6) located at the outer region, the code region (barcode surface 6) including a code (barcode 5) carrying capsule information which code (barcode 5) is optically detectable (‘624, FIG. 1) (‘624, Page 5, lines 6-30). It is noted that the claim does not specify any particular boundaries of the code region other than the code region is disposed at the outer region of the membrane, which is shown in the embodiments depicted in FIGS. 1 and 3.
Halliday et al. discloses the outer region (circumference of frangible film or foil material comprising barcode surface 6 and port surface 4) comprises an absorption region having a moisture absorption ability, i.e. the outer circumference of frangible film or foil material comprises port surface 4 (‘624, FIG. 1) made of a hydrophilic absorbent material since the barcode surface 6 comprises an impermeable hydrophobic material (‘624, Page 6, lines 8-14). It is noted that the claims do not specify that the entirety of the outer region of the membrane solely contains the code region. Any portion of the outer region of the membrane, including the outer circumference portion of the membrane that does not include the code region, reads on the claimed outer region, e.g. the circumferential portion of the membrane that does not contain the code region surface 6. However, Halliday et al. is silent regarding the absorption region being able to absorb water in an amount of at least 0.1 mg/cm2.
Vidal et al. discloses a membrane (lid) comprising an oxygen barrier layer for sealing a beverage capsule (coffee capsule (‘187, Paragraph [0001]) wherein the membrane (lid) is made from at least 50% by weight of biodegradable fibers derived from cotton cellulose fibers or wood fibers (‘187, Paragraphs [0033]-[0034]). Arredondo et al. discloses that cellulose fabrics made of cotton are naturally hydrophilic (‘970, Paragraph [0007]). Therefore, the cotton fibers form which the membrane/lid of Vidal et al. are made are hydrophilic fibers as evidenced by Arredondo et al. Additionally, Arredondo et al. discloses a method for improving the water absorbency of treated fabric containing natural fibers (‘970, Paragraph [0009]) by treating the fabric containing natural fibers with a composition comprising formaldehyde and a catalyst capable of crosslinking formaldehyde with a natural fiber to induce a chemical modification of the natural fibers (‘970, Paragraph [0021]).
Both Halliday et al. and Vidal et al. are directed towards the same field of endeavor of beverage capsules closed off by a hydrophilic membrane. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the membrane/lid of the beverage capsule of Halliday et al. and adjust the moisture absorption ability of the portion of the outer region of the membrane that is the outer circumferential area of the capsule at port surface 4 by treating the fabric containing natural fibers with a composition comprising formaldehyde and a catalyst capable of crosslinking formaldehyde with a natural fiber as taught by Arredondo et al. since differences in the water absorption ability of any portion of the outer region of the membrane will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such water absorption ability of any portion of the outer region of the membrane 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.). Zhao et al. discloses a food container (food service tray) made of a molded pulp packaging material made from recycled paperboard (‘361, Paragraph [0064]) and a blend of fibrous fruit or vegetable pomace combined with fibrous paper based material to achieve stronger fiber bonding and less water holding capacity of a slurry (‘361, Paragraph [0058]) such that the composite molded pulp products achieve a lignocellulosic composition or fiber morphology that is compatible with the fibrous paper based material such that the resulting composite molded product has desired water absorption, flexural strength, or flexural strain properties (‘361, Paragraph [0036]) compared to a similar molded product made from 100% fibrous paper based material (‘361, Paragraph [0044]). One of ordinary skill in the art would adjust the water absorption ability of any portion of the outer region of the membrane based upon the desired water absorption capabilities as taught by Zhao et al.
Further regarding Claim 1, the limitations “for preparing a beverage product” “configured to contain a comestible product,” and “configured to be fastened to the body so as to close the 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, Halliday et al. discloses the capsule being used to prepare a beverage product (‘624, Page 5, lines 19-23), the capsule having a comestible (beverage ingredient) contained therein (‘624, Page 5, lines 12-17) and the membrane (frangible film or foil material covering a side of the cartridge) fasted to the body to close the cavity (‘624, FIG. 1) (‘624, Page 4, lines 9-10).
Regarding Claim 3, Halliday et al. discloses a different embodiment wherein the absorption region and the code region being configured such that the absorption region comprises at least part of the code region (one of surfaces 4, 6 could comprise an absorbent material and the other surface 4,6 could comprises an impermeable material) (‘624, Page 6, lines 8-14). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the embodiment relied upon that teaches the port surface 4 being made of a hydrophilic material and the barcode surface being made of a hydrophobic material and have the code region (barcode surface 6) being made of a hydrophilic/absorbent material) as taught by the alternative embodiment disclosed by Halliday et al. since this configuration also results in a difference in material assisting with controlling the movement of leaked fluid and drawing it away from the barcode (‘624, Page 6, lines 11-14).
Regarding Claim 4, Halliday et al. discloses the outer region (circumference of frangible film or foil material comprising barcode surface 6 and port surface 4) comprises an absorption region having a moisture absorption ability, i.e. the outer circumference of frangible film or foil material comprises port surface 4 (‘624, FIG. 1) made of a hydrophilic absorbent material since the barcode surface 6 comprises an impermeable hydrophobic material (‘624, Page 6, lines 8-14). It is noted that the claims do not specify that the entirety of the outer region of the membrane solely contains the code region. Any portion of the outer region of the membrane, including the outer circumference portion of the membrane that does not include the code region, reads on the claimed outer region, e.g. the circumferential portion of the membrane that does not contain the code region surface 6. However, Halliday et al. modified with Vidal et al., Arredondo et al., and Zhao et al. is silent regarding the moisture absorption ability of the absorption region being such that the absorption region is able to absorb water in an amount of at least 0.05 mL equivalent to 0.05 mg or water in less than 1.5 s. Vidal et al. discloses a membrane (lid) comprising an oxygen barrier layer for sealing a beverage capsule (coffee capsule (‘187, Paragraph [0001]) wherein the membrane (lid) is made from at least 50% by weight of biodegradable fibers derived from cotton cellulose fibers or wood fibers (‘187, Paragraphs [0033]-[0034]). Arredondo et al. discloses that cellulose fabrics made of cotton are naturally hydrophilic (‘970, Paragraph [0007]). Therefore, the cotton fibers form which the membrane/lid of Vidal et al. are made are hydrophilic fibers as evidenced by Arredondo et al. Additionally, Arredondo et al. discloses a method for improving the water absorbency of treated fabric containing natural fibers (‘970, Paragraph [0009]) by treating the fabric containing natural fibers with a composition comprising formaldehyde and a catalyst capable of crosslinking formaldehyde with a natural fiber to induce a chemical modification of the natural fibers (‘970, Paragraph [0021]). Both Halliday et al. and Vidal et al. are directed towards the same field of endeavor of beverage capsules closed off by a hydrophilic membrane. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the membrane/lid of the beverage capsule of Halliday et al. and adjust the moisture absorption ability of the portion of the outer region of the membrane that is the outer circumferential area of the capsule at port surface 4 by treating the fabric containing natural fibers with a composition comprising formaldehyde and a catalyst capable of crosslinking formaldehyde with a natural fiber as taught by Arredondo et al. since differences in the water absorption ability of any portion of the outer region of the membrane will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such water absorption ability of any portion of the outer region of the membrane 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.). Zhao et al. discloses a food container (food service tray) made of a molded pulp packaging material made from recycled paperboard (‘361, Paragraph [0064]) and a blend of fibrous fruit or vegetable pomace combined with fibrous paper based material to achieve stronger fiber bonding and less water holding capacity of a slurry (‘361, Paragraph [0058]) such that the composite molded pulp products achieve a lignocellulosic composition or fiber morphology that is compatible with the fibrous paper based material such that the resulting composite molded product has desired water absorption, flexural strength, or flexural strain properties (‘361, Paragraph [0036]) compared to a similar molded product made from 100% fibrous paper based material (‘361, Paragraph [0044]). One of ordinary skill in the art would adjust the water absorption ability of any portion of the outer region of the membrane based upon the desired water absorption capabilities as taught by Zhao et al.
Regarding Claim 7, Halliday et al. discloses the moisture absorption ability of the absorption region, i.e. the outer circumference of frangible film or foil material comprises port surface 4 (‘624, FIG. 1) made of a hydrophilic absorbent material, is provided by a structuring of a portion of the outer region, i.e. the port surface 4 necessarily has a “structure.”
Further regarding Claim 7, it is noted that the term “structuring” is rendered unclear in view of the indefiniteness rejections under 35 USC 112(b) provided above.
Regarding Claim 8, Halliday et al. discloses with respect to the absorption region (port surface 4 made of hydrophilic material), at least part of the rest of the outer region (at barcode region 6 made of hydrophobic material) is impervious to water (‘624, FIG. 1) (‘624, Page 6, lines 8-11).
Regarding Claim 9, Halliday et al. discloses the code being applied on a sheet element (metallic foil material), the sheet element (metallic foil material) forming the code region (‘624, Page 5, lines 32-35).
Regarding Claim 11, Halliday et al. discloses the capsule information comprising information about the comestible product and beverage preparation parameters (brewing/dispensing parameters) (‘624, Page 1, lines 17-27) (‘624, Page 5, lines 19-23).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Halliday et al. GB 2 569 624 (cited on Information Disclosure Statement filed December 22, 2023) in view of Vidal et al. US 2020/0140187, Arredondo et al. US 2002/0031970, and Zhao et al. US 2018/0119361 as applied to claim 1 above in further view of Trombetta et al. US 2017/0258265 and Todeschini et al. US 2016/0188941.
Regarding Claim 5, Halliday et al. modified with Vidal et al., Arredondo et al., and Zhao et al. is silent regarding the code region extending over between 50% and 100% of the code region.
Trombetta et al. discloses a system comprising a plurality of beverage capsules (capsule 22) comprising a membrane (lid 26) wherein the beverage capsules have different diameters (‘265, FIGS. 2A-2B) (‘265, Paragraphs [0044] and [0056]). Todeschini et al. discloses a barcode scanning device having a graphical window adjusted for size, position, and orientation (‘941, Paragraph [0041]) wherein the graphical window is resized to encompass only the barcode to be decoded (‘941, Paragraph [0042]).
Trombetta et al. establishes that beverage capsules can have a variety of membrane diameter sizes. Todeschini et al. discloses a barcode scanning device having a graphical window that can resize for size such that only the barcode can be decoded. 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 modified Halliday et al. and construct the membrane such that the code extends over between 50% and 100% of the code region since the mere scaling up of a code disposed on a membrane of a beverage capsule, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled in view of In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) (MPEP § 2144.04.IV.A.). The claims do not specify any particular diameter size of the membrane. Trombetta et al. establishes that membranes of beverage capsules come in different sizes. One of ordinary skill in the art would adjust the size ratio of the code with respect to the membrane such that the code is large enough to be decoded by a barcode scanner as taught by Todeschini et al.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Halliday et al. GB 2 569 624 (cited on Information Disclosure Statement filed December 22, 2023) in view of Vidal et al. US 2020/0140187, Arredondo et al. US 2002/0031970, and Zhao et al. US 2018/0119361 as applied to claim 1 above in further view of Trombetta US 2014/0287099.
Regarding Claim 6, Halliday et al. modified with Vidal et al., Arredondo et al., and Zhao et al. is silent regarding the membrane comprising at least two layers wherein the code region and the absorption region are part of the outermost layer of the at least two layers and at least part of the outer layer of the membrane is impervious to water.
Trombetta discloses a beverage capsule (capsule 10) comprising a membrane (cover 18) (‘099, FIGS. 2A-2C and 5) (‘099, Paragraph [0058]) wherein the membrane (cover 18) comprises at least two layers wherein a code region (indicia 40d) is part of one layer (M1) (‘099, Paragraph [0056]) and at least part of the other layers (barrier layer B1) of the membrane (cover 18) is impervious to water (‘099, Paragraph [0058]).
Both modified Halliday et al. and Trombetta are directed towards the same field of endeavor of beverage capsules. Both beverage capsules of modified Halliday et al. and Trombetta et al. contain a membrane having a code disposed thereon. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the membrane of modified Halliday et al. to have at least two layers wherein the code region and the absorption region are part of one layer and at least part of the outer layers of the membrane is impervious to water as taught by Trombetta 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). Trombetta teaches that there was known utility in the beverage capsule art to construct a membrane/lid out of a multilayered laminate having a layer one which a code is disposed and another layer that acts as a barrier layer that is impervious to water. Although Trombetta does not disclose the particular orientation of the order of the layers wherein the code region and the absorption region are part of the outermost layer of the at least two layers, the mere reversal of the layer in which the code region and the absorption region are disposed is held to be an obvious modification in view of In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP § 2144.04.VI.A.). The code of the membrane would be capable of being read regardless of the particular layer in which the code is disposed as long as the code reader is capable of reading the code.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Halliday et al. GB 2 569 624 (cited on Information Disclosure Statement filed December 22, 2023) in view of Vidal et al. US 2020/0140187, Arredondo et al. US 2002/0031970, and Zhao et al. US 2018/0119361 as applied to claim 1 above in further view of Alderson et al. US 2016/0016705.
Regarding Claim 10, Halliday et al. modified with Vidal et al., Arrendondo et al., and Zhao et al. is silent regarding the code including a coating.
Alderson et al. discloses a beverage capsule comprising a body defining a cavity and a membrane (lid 20) configured to be fastened to the body wherein the membrane (lid 20) comprises a code region (one functional area 70) located at an outer region wherein the code region (one functional area 70) includes a code (barcode 71) carrying capsule information and the code (barcode 71) is optically detectable wherein the code (barcode 71) includes a coating (clear lacquer coating) (‘705, FIG. 1) (‘705, Paragraph [0084]).
Both modified Halliday et al. and Alderson et al. are directed towards the same field of endeavor of beverage capsules. Both capsules of modified Halliday et al. and Alderson et al. also contains a membrane comprising a code. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the code disposed on the membrane of modified Halliday et al. and include a coating with the code as taught by Alderson et al. in order to protect the code from the external environment.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bartoli et al. US 2023/0090930 discloses a capsule comprising a sealing element coated with an impermeable lacquer exhibiting known hydrophobic activities (‘930, Paragraph [0020]).
De Vreede et al. US 2016/0302612 discloses a consumable recognition system for recognizing placement and/or type of consumable containing a food substance for preparation of a beverage by use of a beverage dispenser (‘612, Paragraph [0001]) wherein a hydrophobic material such as parchment paper is used to protect electronics in the consumable from water wherein parts of the rim of the consumable are covered with a strong hydrophobic material such as beeswax wherein the hydrophobic material and conductive rings are applied by inkjet printing (‘612, Paragraph [0074]).
Kas et al. US 2016/0185519 discloses a beverage capsule (high pressure extraction capsule 1) comprising a porous hydrophobic membrane (porous hydrophobic membrane 5, 10) that acts as a barrier to fluid flow up to a certain pressure and exceeding the pressure allows for extracting the fluid with active ingredients but still acts as a barrier to particles (‘519, Paragraph [0012]) wherein resistance to flow is created by the hydrophobic membrane (‘519, Paragraph [0015]) wherein the hydrophobic membrane has a surface tension of less than 20 dynes/cm (‘519, Paragraph [0018]).
Gerbaulet et al. US 2013/0323366 discloses a beverage capsule comprising a body defining a cavity and a membrane (lid) having an internal surface made impervious or hydrophobic to liquid in an annular or circular area (liquid impervious area 14) which hydrophobicity comes from the composition of the material constituting the fabric itself or by a surface treatment of the fabric or by a particular structure promoting water repellent properties such as a fabric containing food approved hydrophobic molecules such as fats, oils, proteins, alkanes, silicones, fluorocarbon and combinations thereof to repel liquid and avoid a significant leakage through the hydrophobic wall and a remaining area made of non-hydrophobic materials to promote unimpeded release of the beverage off the pod via this area (‘366, Paragraphs [0026] and [0058]) wherein the fabric is made hydrophobic in whole or part and/or is covered by a liquid impervious foil such as thin metalized polymer (‘366, Paragraph [0059]).
Van der Veen et al. US 2012/0070544 discloses a beverage pad comprising a membrane (first covering) comprising chemical additives for modifying hydrophobic properties of the pad material itself (‘544, Paragraph [0034]).
Nakagiri US 2011/0151060 discloses a beverage capsule comprising a body defining a cavity and a membrane (lid portion 11) made from a hydrophobic raw material to prevent hot water from leaking from the membrane (lid portion 11) wherein the laminated outermost layer is formed as a paper like finish (‘060, FIGS. 3, 7, and 9) (‘060, Paragraph [0060]).
Sluzas US 2009/0246324 discloses an infusion device disposed within a membrane (cover 30) wherein the membrane (cover 30) is formed from a waterproof or water resistant material such as a polyolefin plastic material such as polyethylene or a paper treated with a hydrophobic coating to help extend the shelf life and preserve the freshness of the contents of the infusion device (‘324, FIG. 4) (‘324, Paragraph [0017]).
Scott et al. US 5,431,997 discloses a process of making porous web materials for making infusion packages for brewing beverages (‘997, Column 1, lines 8-13) wherein the entire web material is treated with a latex dispersion of a hydrophobic agent to provide a porous tea bag material exhibiting an extremely low absorbency and wettability as measured by standard water climb test procedures coupled with a retention of its infusion characteristics (‘997, Column 2, lines 5-28) wherein the web is impregnated throughout its extent with at least one percent by weight of a hydrophobic agent of a strength imparting hydrophobic binder or a bonded web material impregnated throughout with a water repellent material which impregnated sheet material exhibits no appreciable water climb (‘997, Column 2, lines 33-49) wherein the hydrophobic characteristics of the treating agent imparts to the web material a resistance to or avoids wetting with water wherein the absorbent character of the fibrous web material is best measured by its water climb, i.e. the absence of such water climb is a primary indicator of its hydrophobic character which water climb is a measure of the rate at which the web material absorbs water by capillary action which rate is reported in units of time needed to travel a fixed distance (‘997, Column 3, lines 3-15).
Yoakim et al. US 2024/0336426 discloses a beverage capsule comprising a body defining a cavity and a membrane comprising a code region (code 44) located at an outer region in any suitable position (‘426, FIG. 10) (‘426, Paragraph [0105]).
Afflter et al. US 2021/0147138 discloses a beverage capsule comprising a body defining a cavity and a membrane comprising a code region (first barcode 28, second barcode 28’) (‘138, FIG. 4) (‘138, Paragraph [0070]).
Nordqvist et al. US 2017/0174417 discloses a beverage capsule comprising a body defining a cavity and a membrane comprising a code region from by the surface of the outer flange portion (‘417, Paragraph [0051]).
Cross et al. US 2016/0302613 discloses a beverage capsule comprising a body defining a cavity and a membrane (lid part) comprising a code region (identifier incorporating a code pattern consisting of one or more discontinuities formed in conductive material) (‘613, Paragraph [0038]) wherein the code region (identifier) is incorporated anywhere on the membrane (lid part) (‘613, Paragraph [0041]) wherein the membrane (lid part) is a polymer/metallic foil laminate (‘613, Paragraph [0043]).
Empl et al. US 2016/0242594 discloses a beverage capsule (capsule 2) comprising a body defining a cavity and a membrane (cover 25) comprising a code region (QR code 60 or bar code 61) (‘594, Paragraphs [0059] and [0067]) disposed at a center of the membrane (‘594, FIG. 2A) or at a circumference of the membrane (‘594, FIGS. 4A-4B).
Jarisch et al. US 2014/0328983 discloses a beverage capsule comprising a body defining a cavity and a membrane comprising a code region (barcode) enabling a detection of the type of capsule and/or the nature of ingredients provided within the capsule to apply a predefined extraction profile for the beverage to be prepared (‘983, Paragraph [0005]).
Aker US 2010/0078480 discloses a beverage capsule comprising a body defining a cavity and a membrane comprising a code region (‘480, FIGS. 2A-2B).
Alsayar et al. US 2021/0338004 discloses a beverage capsule (cartridge 300) comprising a body defining a cavity and a membrane comprising a code region (cartridge tag 302 that is a barcode) (‘004, FIG. 3) (‘004, Paragraph [0042]).
Isohata US 5,789,076 discloses a liquid absorbent sheet for storing food wherein the liquid absorbing material contains a wetting agent and the liquid absorbing material has a hydrophobic surface which wetting agent improves the water absorption.
Pierpaoli US 2021/0381168 discloses a hydrophobic surface has the property of not absorbing and not retaining water (‘168, Paragraph [0015]).
Golkowski et al. US 2021/0023250 discloses a wicking material comprising a combination of both hydrophobic (water repellent) and hydrophilic (water attracting) fibers wherein fibers comprise a moisture absorbing finish (‘250, Paragraph [0465]).
Alden et al. US 2020/0318292 discloses a packaging container comprising a packaging material for liquid or semi-liquid food (‘292, Paragraph [0129]) wherein the packaging material is a laminated packaging material (‘292, Paragraph [0135]) and a method of forming the laminated packaging material (‘292, Paragraph [0001]) wherein the method further comprises a step of performing hydrophobic sizing by adding alkylketene dimer, alkyl succinic anhydride, and /or rosin sizing before distributing the fibrous foam composition onto a substrate or into a mold resulting in a lower hydrophobicity and thus increasing the tendency of the liquid to absorb liquid when dry (‘292, Paragraph [0051]).
Flynn et al. US 2020/0283959 discloses an insulated paper product for insulating a food item (‘959, Paragraph [0061]) wherein multiple different additives are used to reduce the propensity of the insulated paper product to absorb moisture and weaken when moist wherein perlite is more hydrophobic than paper fibers so the incorporation of perlite into and/or onto a paper layer renders the paper layer less absorbent wherein paper fiber is treated with rosin and then aluminum sulfate is added to the furnish to impart hydrophobicity to the paper layer (‘959, Paragraph [0064]).
Pignataro US 2020/0069096 discloses a beverage container sleeve (‘096, Paragraph [0018]) comprising a sidewall having a moisture barrier configured to not allow moisture to pass therethrough wherein the moisture barrier is on a surface of absorbent material opposite the interior volume wherein the exterior surface comprises hydrophobic wax paper disposed adjacent to the absorbent material such that the wax is the moisture barrier as moisture is unable to pass through a layer of wax to the paper (‘096, Paragraph [0017]).
Labbe et al. US 2010/0051674 discloses a substantially water repellant and bas barrier composite material that can be used to manufacture containers (‘674, Paragraph [0003]) wherein “water repellant,” “water resistant,” and “hydrophobic” means to repel, block, or not transmit or absorb any significant quantity of liquid water in normal use (‘674, Paragraph [0014]).
Stern US 5,988,426 discloses a beverage lid for hot coffee wherein the beverage lid (membrane 14) is precut from hydrophobic microporous materials formed with polytetrafluoroethylene or any other porous filter membrane including other suitable polymers and paper or cellulose based materials as long as they inhibit or prevent passage of liquids wherein the beverage lid (membrane 14) is not absorbent so as not to absorb liquid and block filter micropores.
Bartkow US 2016/0152388 discloses a beverage cover comprising paper and/or synthetic plastic materials which can be formed into thin plastic films wherein the material is hydrophobic, hydrophilic, or otherwise wherein the cover is coated with a synthetic material of a waterproof or water resistant coating to prevent the cover from absorbing liquid or moisture (‘388, Paragraph [0146]).
Vennerberg et al. US 2019/0322080 discloses a food container package (‘080, Paragraph [0001]) wherein a well known method of improving the barrier properties of packaging materials is to incorporate EVOH into a multilayer film structure but the most significant issue concerning the use of EVOH as an oxygen barrier material is its moisture sensitivity, i.e. EVOH is hydrophilic and absorbs a significant amount of moisture when directly exposed to humid conditions leading to an increase in its oxygen permeability (‘080, Paragraph [0004]).
Sadik et al. US 2018/0340049 discloses a food packaging material (‘049, Paragraph [0096]) wherein mechanical properties of food packaging materials are a parameter in assessing their relevance as packaging materials (‘049, Paragraph [0250]) wherein contact angle is the parameter typically used to evaluate hydrophilicity of food packaging materials and provides information on the tendency of thee material to absorb water wherein a good contact angle refers to over hydrophobic range of over 65° which substantially eliminates water vapor absorption that may trigger microbial development on or within the packaging material (‘049, Paragraph [0257]).
Lau et al. US 9,950,827 discloses a hydrophilic coating or water absorbing material can absorb condensation on a multilayered beverage container.
Okamura US 3,616,169 discloses a web or nonwoven fabric produced from chromed collagen fiber exhibiting excellent moisture absorption release performance similar to that of leather wherein two or more of the thin sheets of the nonwoven fabric is laminated to yield products having varying properties wherein the web and shaped articles are produced from a blend of nylon fiber having moisture absorption of 1.8 mg/g (3-5 cm in length) with chromed collagen fiber having moisture absorption of 12.0 mg/g in various mixing ratios.
Stein et al. US 2024/0367895 discloses a biodegradable container (‘895, Paragraph [0001]) made with a coating station for applying a barrier layer system to apply the cover of the portioning container wherein the coating station is configured to perform a physical layering process or vapor deposition such as evaporation deposition, plasma coating or spraying (‘895, Paragraph [0060]) wherein a barrier coating or layer is deposited by plasma enhanced chemical vapor deposition (PECVD) or other chemical vapor deposition processes on the vessel of a compostable or biodegradable package to prevent oxygen, carbon dioxide, or other gases from entering the vessel and/or to prevent leaching of the material into or through the package wall (‘430, Paragraph [0117]) wherein the surface coating acts as a water vapor barrier layer and/or as a barrier against leachables (‘430, Paragraph [0188]).
Taha et al. US 2022/0169430 discloses a PECVD coated vessel of a coffee pod made of compostable or biodegradable material with improved as and/or water vapor barrier properties with an improved leachable profile (‘430, Paragraphs [0002]-[0003]) wherein flavor scalping is use to describe the flavor change of the content inside a packaging caused by either its volatile flavor being absorbed or adsorbed by the packaging material or the content absorbing undesirable flavors form its packaging material (‘430, Paragraph [0046]) wherein PECVD coatings can block leachables of the container wall material from entering into the content or headspace and can also prevent flavor scalping wherein leachables from container materials from the plastics can negatively affect coffee quality (‘430, Paragraphs [0046]-[0047]).
Lanctuit et al. US 9,415,913 discloses a polyolefin container of an ingredient containing capsule used in a beverage production machine comprising a multilayered film and/or a plasma coated film (‘913, Column 5, lines 44-65) wherein a gas barrier coating is deposited on a polymer substrate by low pressure plasma (‘913, Column 2, lines 10-13) wherein plasma enhanced chemical vapor deposition (PECVD) is a process used to deposit thin films from a gas state to a solid state on a substrate wherein chemical reactions occur after creation of a plasma of the process gases wherein plasma assisted chemical vapor deposition is an equivalent term to PECVD (‘913, Column 6, lines 7-11).
Lorenzetti et al. US 2019/0077132 discloses a liquid food packaging laminated material comprising a barrier film having a vapor deposited barrier coating of amorphous diamond like carbon (‘132, Paragraph [0001]) wherein the vapor deposition coating is an amorphous hydrogenated carbon barrier layer applied by a plasma enhanced chemical vapor deposition process, PECVD, a so called diamond like carbon (DLC) which provides good and sufficient adhesion to adjacent polymer or adhesive layers in a laminated packaging material under wet testing conditions (‘132, Paragraph [0055]).
Toft et al. US 2012/0100320 discloses a non-foil, high barrier, paper based packaging laminate for packaging liquid food or beverage wherein the packaging laminate comprises barrier layers and outermost and innermost heat sealable layers of thermoplastic polymers (‘320, Paragraph [0001]).
Epsy US 4,458,042 discloses an improved absorbent material comprising a blend of polyolefin and wood fluff pulps (‘042, Column 1, lines 7-15) wherein the blend of polyethylene pulp and bleached softwood kraft pulp blended in varying proportions that are then formed into sheets, dewatered, and dried with conventional paper making equipment (‘042, Column 4, lines 18-25) wherein the optimal amount of polyolefin pulp for a particular blend depends on the polyolefin pulp chosen and the properties desired in the final absorbent material wherein as the percentage of polyolefin pulp increases the strength of the absorbent material also increases (‘042, Column 2, lines 31-38) wherein the polyolefin pulp is treating with a wetting agent substance that is a surface active agent which reduces the surface tension of water and as water comes into contact with the treated material water is more readily penetrated (‘042, Column 2, lines 31-38) wherein the wetting agent substance treatment of polyolefin pulp is done in a variety of ways known in the art including spurting the polyolefin pulp directly into an aqueous solution containing the wetting agent substance under which conditions the wetting agent substance is absorbed onto the surface of the fiber or by spraying a solution of the wetting agent substance onto the pulp or adding the wetting agent substance to the pulp slurry during the blending process (‘042, Column 2, lines 61-68) (‘042, Column 3, lines 1-3).
Chen et al. US 2019/0062998 discloses a beverage capsule (coffee capsule) comprising a body (capsule main body CMB) and a membrane (capsule lid CL) (‘998, Paragraph [0006]) made from a formulation of paper based materials of cellulose fibers extracted from a plant pulp such as cotton (‘998, Paragraph [0026]) wherein the material has a water absorption percentage of no higher than 10% (‘998, Paragraph [0042])
Emanuelsson et al. US 4,144,122 discloses a method of treating cellulose pulp or paper comprising adding quaternary ammonium compounds by reducing interfiber bonding provided by treatment of cellulose pulp or paper with good hydrophilicity (wettability) and low mechanical strength (‘122, Column 2, lines 21-29).
Garcin et al. US 2016/0362246 discloses a system comprising a plurality of beverage capsules comprising a membrane .
Trombetta et al. US 2017/0258265 discloses a system comprising a plurality of beverage capsules (capsule 22) comprising a membrane (lid 26) wherein the beverage capsules have different diameters (‘265, FIGS. 2A-2B) (‘265, Paragraphs [0044] and [0056]).
Yamada et al. US 2015/0077767 discloses a printer and control system that can adjust the size of characters based on font data (‘767, Paragraph [0007]).
Fu et al. US 2017/0259974 discloses a beverage capsule (beverage portion capsule) made of a laminate foil material (‘974, Paragraph [0016]) wherein the beverage capsule comprises a membrane (lid) (‘974, Paragraph [0053]) wherein the laminate foil material comprises a layer impervious to water (oxygen barrier layer) (‘974, Paragraph [0032]) and a layer comprising an optical tag (luminescent material) (‘974, Paragraphs [0005] and [0027]).
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