DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-8) in the reply filed on 02/24/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 9 and 14 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the specification recites “centre” throughout the specification, it appears that each instance of “centre” should be changed to “center”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 6-8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites “the elements” in line 8, and in order to remain consistent should recite “the plurality of elements”.
Regarding claim 6, claim 6 recites “centre” and should be changed to “center”.
Regarding claims 6-8, each of claims 6-8 recites “the code elements”, however claim 1 recites “the code comprising a plurality of elements” and in order to remain consistent “the code elements” should be changed to “the plurality of elements”.
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 and 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 6, claim 6 recites “the radial direction”, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 6, claim 6 recites “wherein the code elements extend with a linear centre line aligned to the radial direction from the first position to the second position”. It is unclear what is meant by this limitation, it is unclear if the claim is requiring the code elements to be linear and lines aligned to the radial direction from the first position to the second position. It is unclear how code elements extending in a radial direction from the first position on the storage portion to the second position on the flange can be linear.
Regarding claim 7, claim 7 recites “their relative circumferential proportion”. It is unclear what “their” is referring to the plurality of code elements or something else.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bugnano US 2015/0297021.
Regarding claim 1, Bugnano discloses a container arranged for containing a precursor material for use with a machine for preparing a beverage, the container comprising a storage portion (body 2), a closing member (cover 6), a flange (5) connecting the storage portion and the closing member and a machine-readable code (projections 8 and recesses 9) storing preparation information for use with a preparation process performed by the machine, the code comprises a plurality of elements (projections 8), wherein the elements of the code extend from a first position on the storage portion (2) to a second position on the flange (5) (Fig. 1-4, [0053]-[0056])). The code is capable of being readable from the flange or the storage portion and the elements are capable of being read about an axis of rotation of the container.
Regarding claim 3, Bugnano discloses that the first position is at a base region of a cavity of the storage portion (it is noted that depending on the orientation of the cavity portion 4b can be considered a base region) (Figs. 1-4).
Regarding claim 4, it is noted that an axis of rotation of the container depends on the orientation in which the container is rotated, and the first position can be considered an axis of rotation of the container based on how the container of Bugnano is rotated.
Regarding claim 8, Bugnano discloses that the code elements (projections 8) extend continuously between the first and second positions (Fig. 1-4, [0053]-[0056]).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating
obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bugnano US 2015/0297021 in view of Kruger US 2013/0129872.
Regarding claim 2, Bugnano discloses that the container is rotationally symmetric about an axis of rotation (Figs. 1-6).
Claim 2 differs from Bugnano in the recitation that the code is arranged along a virtual circular line that has a center at the axis of rotation.
Kruger discloses a machine-readable code that is similar to the code of Bugnano and the container of Kruger is rotationally symmetric about an axis of rotation. Kruger discloses that the machine readable code comprises a plurality of elements, the code is arranged along a virtual circular line that has a center at the axis of rotation (Figs. 19-22, [0009], [0010], [0024], [0025], [0081]-[0084]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Bugnano such that the code is arranged along a virtual circular line that has a center at the axis of rotation as suggested by Kruger, as a matter of design choice, based on the desired shape of the container.
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bugnano US 2015/0297021.
Regarding claim 5, claim 5 differs from Bugnato in the recitation that the second position is specifically proximal or at an outer rim of the flange. However, the second position can be considered merely close to proximal the outer rim of the flange (See Fig. 3, Fig. 6) (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 7, claim 7 differs from Bugnano in the recitation that the code elements (8) extend with increasing circumferential width with radial distance, such that so their relative circumferential proportion does not change with distance, however this is seen to be a mere change in shape of the elements (8) of Bugnano (MPEP 2144.04.B)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHLEY AXTELL whose telephone number is (571)270-0316. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00- 5:30.
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.
/A.A/
Ashley AxtellExaminer, Art Unit 1792
/ERIK KASHNIKOW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights