DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
This is the first office action in response to Claims filed on 01/12/2024
Claims 1-10, and 12are pending.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application also includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation is/are: “processing unit” in Claim 10, which is interpreted as a container processing unit see P. 8-9.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Drawing Objections
The drawings are objected to because Figs. 1-3 represent white boxes without indication of their representations. 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 Objections
Claims 5, 10, and 13 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5: L. 2 “an opposed lower surface” should be –the lower surface --, and L. 4 “radii” should be –the radius and the radial length --;
Claim 10: L. 13 “a machine for preparing a beverage” should be – the machine for preparing the beverage--; and
Claim 13: L. 11 “the code” should be – the code--.
Appropriate correction required and claims are interpreted as indicated above.
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 1-7, 9-10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bartoli (W0 2020/128961) in view of Jarish (US 2013/0064929).
Regarding Claim 1: Bartoli discloses a container (1; Fig. 1) arranged for containing a precursor material ([0002]) for use with a machine (“machine” [0002]) for preparing a beverage and/or foodstuff ([0002]), the container comprising: a storage portion (5; Fig. 1) having an opening (see annotated figure ‘961) for receiving the precursor material, the storage portion extending in a depth direction (see annotated figure ‘961) from said opening; a membrane (11; Fig. 27) to close the opening; a flange (15; Fig. 27) including an upper surface (see annotated figure ‘961), an opposed lower surface (see annotated figure ‘961) arranged at a greater depth than the upper surface, and a peripheral edge (see annotated figure ‘961), wherein the membrane is arranged to extend: over the upper surface; around the peripheral edge, and; over the lower surface (see annotated figure ‘961).
PNG
media_image1.png
1004
775
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
673
505
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Bartoli is silent regarding a machine-readable code storing preparation information for use with a preparation process performed by said machine, wherein the code is arranged on a lower surface portion of the membrane, which adjoins the lower surface of the flange.
However, Jarish teaches a container (see Fig. 5) arranged for containing a precursor material (69; Fig. 5), having a flange (see annotated figure ‘929) including an upper surface (see annotated figure ‘929), an opposed lower surface (see annotated figure ‘929) arranged at a greater depth than the upper surface, and a peripheral edge (see annotated figure ‘929),
a machine-readable code storing preparation information (72 and sequence in Fig. 2; Fig. 5) for use with a preparation process ([0020]) performed by said machine, wherein the code is arranged on a lowest surface portion (see Fig, 5) of the flange.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the container of Bartoli, to have a machine-readable code storing preparation information for use with a preparation process performed by said machine, wherein the code is arranged on a lowest surface portion of the flanges and thus as , in Bartoli, the membrane covers the lower surface of the membrane, arranged on a lower surface portion of the membrane, which adjoins the lower surface of the flange. Such a modification would enable to have different information on the container and cotenant, as recognized by Jarish ([0020]).
Regarding Claim 2: Bartoli in view of Jarish teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, as stated above, and Bartoli further discloses wherein the membrane is physically connected to at least one of: the upper surface; the lower surface; the peripheral edge of the flange (Fig. 27).
Regarding Claim 3: Bartoli in view of Jarish teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, as stated above, and Bartoli further discloses wherein the membrane includes formation portions (13, 17; Fig. 27) arranged on the portion adjoining the lower surface, said portions configured to enable expansion and/or contraction as the membrane is wrapped around said peripheral edge (17 is a seal thus allowing for expansion; [0104]).
Regarding Claim 4: Bartoli in view of Jarish teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, as stated above, and Bartoli further discloses wherein the peripheral edge is circular in cross-section (cross section partially circular; Fig. 27), a peripheral edge portion of the membrane is arranged to extend around said circular-cross section (see Fig. 27).
Regarding Claim 5: Bartoli in view of Jarish teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, as stated above, and Bartoli further discloses wherein the upper surface and an opposed lower surface have a radial length (see annotated figure ‘961) of less than a first limit (the radial length has necessarily a value ) and the peripheral edge has a radius (see annotated figure ‘961) of less than (the radius has necessarily a value) less than the first limit (see Fig. 27), wherein a material ([0004]) of the membrane is selected to extend over said radii without overlapping portions (see Fig. 27 wherein no wrapping is present).
Bartoli is silent regarding the first limit being 5 mm and the second limit being 2 mm
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first limit being 5 mm and the second limit being 2 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
(“[W]here 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 re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.); See also In re Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 (“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known
Regarding Claim 6: Bartoli in view of Jarish teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, as stated above, and Bartoli further discloses wherein a material of the membrane is made of a plastic based material ([0004]).
Regarding Claim 7: Bartoli in view of Jarish teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, as stated above, and Bartoli further discloses wherein the membrane has a thickness of a few tenths of millimeter ([0008]), but does not explicitly recite the thickness being 0.25mm - 4 mm.
However, it has been held that “where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) MPEP 2144.05 I.
It would have been obvious to one skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the thickness being 0.25mm - 4 mm, as the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close.
Regarding Claim 9: Bartoli in view of Jarish teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, as stated above, and Jarish further teaches wherein the code is arranged to be readable as the container is rotated about an axis of rotation (see Abstract).
Regarding Claim 10: Bartoli discloses a system (system using 1; Fig. 1) comprising a container (1; Fig. 1) arranged for containing a precursor material ([0002]) for use with a machine (“machine” [0002]) for preparing a beverage and/or foodstuff ([0002]), the container comprising: a storage portion (5; Fig. 1) having an opening (see annotated figure ‘961) for receiving the precursor material, the storage portion extending in a depth direction (see annotated figure ‘961) from said opening; a membrane (11; Fig. 27) to close the opening; a flange (15; Fig. 27) including an upper surface (see annotated figure ‘961), an opposed lower surface (see annotated figure ‘961) arranged at a greater depth than the upper surface, and a peripheral edge (see annotated figure ‘961), wherein the membrane is arranged to extend: over the upper surface; around the peripheral edge, and; over the lower surface (see annotated figure ‘961), and a machine ( [0002]) for preparing a beverage and/or foodstuff ([0002]).
Bartoli is silent regarding a machine-readable code storing preparation information for use with a preparation process performed by said machine, wherein the code is arranged on a lower surface portion of the membrane, which adjoins the lower surface of the flange, and a code reading system to read the code of the container ; a processing unit for processing the precursor material of the container and electrical circuitry to control the processing unit based on preparation information read from the code.
However, Jarish teaches a container (see Fig. 5) arranged for containing a precursor material (69; Fig. 5), having a flange (see annotated figure ‘929) including an upper surface (see annotated figure ‘929), an opposed lower surface (see annotated figure ‘929) arranged at a greater depth than the upper surface, and a peripheral edge (see annotated figure ‘929), a machine-readable code storing preparation information (72 and sequence in Fig. 2; Fig. 5) for use with a preparation process ([0020]) performed by said machine, wherein the code is arranged on a lowest surface portion (see Fig, 5) of the flange, and a code reading system (62 and elements operatively connect thereto; Fig. 5) to read the code of the container ; a processing unit (Fig. 1) for processing the precursor material of the container and electrical circuitry (12; Fig. 1) to control the processing unit based on preparation information read from the code ([0004, 12, 20-24]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the container of Bartoli, to have a machine-readable code storing preparation information for use with a preparation process performed by said machine, wherein the code is arranged on a lowest surface portion of the flanges and thus as, in Bartoli, the membrane covers the lower surface of the membrane, arranged on a lower surface portion of the membrane, which adjoins the lower surface of the flange; and a code reading system to read the code of the container ; a processing unit for processing the precursor material of the container and electrical circuitry to control the processing unit based on preparation information read from the code. Such a modification would enable to have different information on the container and cotenant, as recognized by Jarish ([0020]).
Regarding Claim 12: Bartoli discloses A method of forming a container (1; Fig. 1) for containing a precursor material ([0002]) for use with a machine (“machine” [0002]) for preparing a beverage and/or foodstuff ([0002]), the method comprising: arranging a membrane (11; Fig. 27) over an upper surface (see annotated figure ‘961) of a flange (15; Fig. 27), said flange being connected to a storage portion (see Fig. 27), the storage portion extending in a depth direction (see annotated figure ‘961) from the flange; wrapping the membrane around a peripheral edge (see annotated figure ‘961) of the flange, said peripheral edge adjoining the upper surface (see annotated figure ‘961); arranging the membrane over a lower surface (see annotated figure ‘961) of the flange, said lower surface adjoining the peripheral edge and arranged at a greater depth than the upper surface (see annotated figure ‘961); connecting the membrane to the flange (See Fig. 27).
Bartoli is silent regarding forming the code on the membrane that extends over the lower surface.
However, Jarish teaches a method for forming a container (see Fig. 5) arranged for containing a precursor material (69; Fig. 5), providing a flange (see annotated figure ‘929) including an upper surface (see annotated figure ‘929), an opposed lower surface (see annotated figure ‘929) arranged at a greater depth than the upper surface, and a peripheral edge (see annotated figure ‘929), providing a machine-readable code storing preparation information (72 and sequence in Fig. 2; Fig. 5) for use with a preparation process ([0020]) performed by said machine, wherein the code is arranged on a lowest surface portion (see Fig, 5) of the flange.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Bartoli, to provide a machine-readable code storing preparation information for use with a preparation process performed by said machine, wherein the code is arranged on a lowest surface portion of the flanges and thus as , in Bartoli, the code being on the membrane that extends over the lower surface. Such a modification would enable to have different information on the container and cotenant, as recognized by Jarish ([0020]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bartoli (US W0 2020/128961) in view of Jarish (US 2013/0064929) and further in view of Kruger (US 2017/0305654).
Regarding Claim 8: Bartoli in view of Jarish teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, as stated above, but is silent regarding wherein a peripheral edge portion of the membrane comprises the code.
However, Kruger teaches a container (1; Fig. 1) having peripheral edge portion (edge nest to 13; Fig. 6) comprises a code (bar code next to 13; Fig. 6, [0064])
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the container of Bartoli, to have a peripheral edge portion comprises the code and thus as , in Bartoli, the membrane covers the peripheral edge, a peripherical edge portion of the membrane edge comprises the code. Such a modification would enable to have a supplementary or extended location for the code and thus facilitate reading.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see notice of references cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODOLPHE ANDRE CHABREYRIE whose telephone number is (571)272-3482. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30-18:30.
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, Steven Crabb can be reached on (571) 270-5095. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RODOLPHE ANDRE CHABREYRIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights