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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-13 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 1, claim 1 recites in lines 1-6 recites “A capsule for preparing a beverage, the capsule comprising: one or more fiber layers comprising fibers, and one or more polymer layers comprising a polymer selected from the group consisting of polylactic acid, polybutylene succinate, polybutylene adipate terephthalate, polyhydroxyalkanoate, and a polysaccharide” and then further recites in lines 7-18 that the capsule comprises a bottom, a side wall and a lid, wherein the bottom 40 and the side wall are made of the same material and the lid is made of another material, characterized in that the bottom and the side wall each comprise one or more fiber layers comprising fluff pulp, and one or more polymer layers comprising a polymer selected from the group consisting of polylactic acid, polybutylene succinate, polybutylene adipate terephthalate, polyhydroxyalkanoate, and a polysaccharide; and wherein the lid comprises one or more fiber layers comprising wood pulp, and one or more polymer layers comprising a polymer selected from the group consisting of polylactic acid, polybutylene succinate, polybutylene adipate terephthalate, polyhydroxyalkanoate, and a polysaccharide.”
It is unclear if the layers recited in lines 7-18 are the same as or different from the layers recited in lines 1-6, it is unclear what the layers of lines 1-6 are for since the specific layers of the capsule bottom, sidewalls and lid are specified in lines 7-18.
Regarding claim 2, claim 2 recites “wherein at least one polymer layer is arranged on the one or more fiber layers such that it faces towards an interior of the capsule”. First it is unclear what “it” is referring to. Second it is unclear if the at least one polymer layer is the same as any of the at least one polymer layers recited in claim 1. Third it is unclear what fiber layers “the one or more fiber layers” is referring to, the one or more fiber layers of the sidewall and bottom or the one or more fiber layers of the lid.
Regarding claim 3, claim 3 recites “wherein the capsule comprises two or more fiber layers”. It is unclear if the two or more fibers layers are the same as the fiber layers already recited in claim 1 or are different.
Regarding claim 4, claim 4 recites “wherein at least one polymer layer is arranged between two adjacent fiber layers”. It is unclear if the recited layers are the same as of different from the layers already recited in claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, claim 5 recites “wherein the one or more fiber layers comprises one or more layers comprising wood pulp” it is unclear what fiber layers in claim 1 “the one or more fiber layers” is referring to.
Regarding claim 6, claim 6 recites “wherein the one or more fiber layers comprises one or more layers comprising fluff pulp” it is unclear what fiber layers in claim 1 “the one or more fiber layers” is referring to.
Regarding claim 7, claim 7 recites, “the one or more polymer layers,” which lacks proper antecedent basis. It is not clear which of the “one or more polymer layers” this is referring to.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 recites “at least one polymer layer is arranged on the one or more fiber layers”. It is unclear if “at least one polymer layer” is the same as or different from those already recited in claim 1. Additionally, it is unclear what fiber layer “the one or more fiber layers” is referring to in claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 recites “at least one polymer layer is arranged on the one or more fiber layers”. It is unclear if “at least one polymer layer” is the same as or different from those already recited in claim 1. Additionally, it is unclear what fiber layer “the one or more fiber layers” is referring to in claim 1.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, each of claims 11 and 12 recite “it” and it is unclear what “it” is referring to, at least one polymer layer or the one or more fiber layers.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 recites “the one or more polymer layers”. Given that claim 1 contains a number of polymer layers it is unclear what polymer layers “the one or more polymer layers” is referring to.
Claims 8-10 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on a rejected base claim.
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.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuiper et al. US 2023/0040636.
Regarding claim 1, Kuiper suggests that the packaging of the invention can be used for a coffee capsule ([0090]). Therefore, Kuiper is seen to teach that the package of the invention can be utilized as a coffee capsule.
Kuiper teaches a package comprising a bottom, a sidewall (302), and a lid (310) (Fig. 4). Kuiper teaches that the bottom and sidewall are made from the same material and the lid (10) is made of another material ([0137]-[0139], [0128]-[0131]).
Kuiper teaches that the bottom and sidewalls comprise a fiber layer comprising fluff pulp (container 302 is manufactured from fluff pulp) ([0139]) and a polymer layer comprising a polymer selected from polylactic acid and/ or PBS and or PBAT ([0139]).
Kuiper discloses that the lid (10) comprises ([0131]) a fiber layer comprising wood pulp (paper layer 10f) ([0138]) and a polymer layer comprising a polymer selected from PBS and/or PLA and/or PBAT ([0014]-[0016]).
Therefore, the capsule as a whole comprises one or more fiber layers comprising fibers and one or more polymer layers comprising a polymer selected from the group of PLA, PBS, PBAT.
Regarding claim 2, Kuiper discloses that at least one polymer layer is arranged on the fiber layer such that it faces towards an interior of the capsule (inner surface 320 of 302 comprises PBS, PBAT, PLA optionally as film layer) ([0139]).
Regarding claim 3, Kuiper discloses that the capsule comprises two or more fiber layers (first and second paper layers) ([0028]).
Regarding claim 4, Kuiper discloses that at least one polymer layer is arranged between two adjacent fiber layers (first and second paper layers) ([0061]).
Regarding claim 5, Kuiper discloses that the fiber layer comprises a layer of wood pulp (paper layer 10f) ([0138]).
Regarding claim 6, Kuiper the fiber layer comprises a layer comprising fluff pulp (container 302 is manufactured from fluff pulp) ([0139]).
Regarding claim 7, Kuiper discloses that the polymer layer further comprises additives ([0039]).
Regarding claim 8, Kuiper discloses that the capsule is biodegradable ([0051])
Regarding claim 9, Kuiper discloses that the capsule complies with the requirements of EN 13432 ([0051]).
Regarding claim 10, Kuiper suggests that the packaging of the invention can be used for a coffee capsule ([0090]). Therefore, Kuiper is seen to teach that the package of the invention can be utilized as a coffee capsule and therefore teaches that package can be a capsule for preparing a coffee.
Regarding claim 11, Kuiper discloses that at least one polymer layer is arranged on the fiber layer such that the fiber layer faces towards an exterior of the capsule (inner surface 320 of 302 comprises PBS, PBAT, PLA optionally as film layer) ([0139]). As discussed above in the 112b rejection it is unclear what “it” is referring to.
Regarding claim 12, Kuiper discloses that at least one polymer layer is arranged on the fiber layer such that the fiber layer faces towards an exterior of the capsule (inner surface 320 of 302 comprises PBS, PBAT, PLA optionally as film layer) ([0139]). As discussed above in the 112b rejection it is unclear what “it” is referring to.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuiper et al. US 2023/0040636 in view of Furneaux US 2007/0259139.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 differs from Kuiper in the recitation that the one or more polymer layers further comprises a plasticizer.
Furneaux discloses that plasticizers can be added to provide flexibility or to adjust the sealing properties of polylactic acid ([0022]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kuiper such that the one or more polymer layers further comprises a plasticizer as taught by Furneaux in order to provide flexibility and adjust sealing properties as desired.
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
/VIREN A THAKUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792