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 2 and 4 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 2, 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 4, claim 4 recites “two fiber layers”. It is unclear if the recited layers are the same as of different from the fiber layers already recited in claim 1.
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 1-4, 7-12 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]).
Regarding claim 2, Kuiper discloses that at least one polymer layer of the one or more polymer layers of the bottom and the sidewall is arranged on the fiber layer such that the at least one polymer layer 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 the one or more fiber layers of the lid comprises two or more fiber layers (first and second paper layers) ([0028]).
Regarding claim 4, Kuiper discloses that at least one polymer layer of the bottom and side wall is arranged between two fiber layers ([0061]).
Regarding claim 7, Kuiper discloses that the one or more polymer layers of the bottom, the side wall or the lid 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 of the one or more polymer layers of the bottom and side wall is arranged on the fiber layer such that the polymer layer faces towards an exterior of the capsule ([0061], [0137]-[0139]).
Regarding claim 12, Kuiper discloses that at least one polymer layer of the lid is arranged on the fiber layer (paper layer 10g) such that the polymer layer (any one of the intermediate polymer layers) faces towards an exterior of the capsule (10g can be paper) (Fig. 1D, [0132], [0005]-[0010], [0092]).
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.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuiper et al. US 2023/0040636 in view of Chen US 2019/0062998.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 differs from Kuiper in the recitation that Kuiper explicitly teaches providing the capsule with a water vapor transmission rate at 23 °C and a relative humidity of 50% of from 15-100g/ m2d as determined in accordance with ISO 7783:2018.
However Kuiper suggests providing a packaging material with the claimed water vapor transmission rate (Table 1, [0149], [0152]-[0153]) utilizing another measurement standard. Kuiper shows that the water vapor transmission rate can vary based on the particular films used with the multilayer 10, 20 ([0151], [0152], Table 1). Kuiper teaches that providing low water vapor transmission rate reduces the loss of aroma due to high WVTR, therefore it would have been obvious to routinely adjust the water vapor transmission rate in order to achieve a desired aroma retention of the product ([0153]) (MPEP 2144.05.II).
Additionally, Chen discloses providing a composite material that is used to form a coffee capsule with a water vapor transmission rate of 10-100g/m2d ([0050], [0076], claim 33, 39, 43). Therefore, Chen recognizes suitable water vapor transmission rates for coffee capsules include water vapor transmission rates claimed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kuiper such that the capsule has a water vapor transmission rate of 10-100g/m2d as suggested by Chen, encompassing the claimed range, in order to provide the capsule with a known suitable water vapor transmission rate for coffee capsules.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuiper et al. US 2023/0040636 in view of Andreae US 2017/0158422.
Regarding claim 15, Kuiper teaches that the bottom and sidewalls consist of 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]) ([0057]-[0058])
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]).
Claim 15 differs from Kuiper in the recitation that (b) the lid (10) consists of (i) the one or more fiber layers comprising wood pulp, and (ii) the one or more polymer layers consisting of a polymer selected from the group consisting of polylactic acid, polybutylene succinate, polybutylene adipate terephthalate, polyhydroxyalkanoate, and a polysaccharide, since Kuiper discloses that the one or more polymer layers of the lid (10) includes a functional barrier layer made of PVOH ([0005], [0008], [0017]), and therefore includes a polymer layer that includes a polymer other than a polymer selected from the group consisting of polylactic acid, polybutylene succinate, polybutylene adipate terephthalate, polyhydroxyalkanoate, and a polysaccharide.
Andreae teaches a barrier layer can be formed utilizing polysaccharide ([0016]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the functional barrier layer made of PVOH with a functional barrier layer made of polysaccharide, as suggested by Andreae, thereby substituting one known polymer barrier layer for another known polymer barrier layer with a reasonable expectation of success, and thereby arriving at the capsule according to claim 15 (MPEP 2143.I.B).
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuiper et al. US 2023/0040636 in view of Andreae US 2017/0158422 in view of Chen US 2019/0062998.
Regarding claims 16-17, claim 16 differs from Kuiper in the recitation that Kuiper explicitly teaches providing the capsule with a water vapor transmission rate at 23 °C and a relative humidity of 50% of from 15-100g/ m2d as determined in accordance with ISO 7783:2018. Claim 17 differs from Kuiper in the recitation that Kuiper explicitly teaches providing the capsule with a water vapor transmission rate at 23 °C and a relative humidity of 50% of from 20-80g/ m2d as determined in accordance with ISO 7783:2018.
It is however Kuiper suggests providing a packaging material with the claimed water vapor transmission rate (Table 1, [0149], [0152]-[0153]) utilizing another measurement type. Kuiper shows that the water vapor transmission rate can vary based on the particular films used with the multilayer 10, 20 ([0151], [0152], Table 1). Kuiper teaches that providing low water vapor transmission rate reduces the loss of aroma due to high WVTR, therefore it would have been obvious to routinely adjust the water vapor transmission rate in order to achieve a desired aroma retention of the product ([0153]) (MPEP 2144.05.II).
Additionally, Chen discloses providing a composite material that is used to form a coffee capsule with a water vapor transmission rate of 10-100g/m2d ([0050], [0076], claim 33, 39, 43). Therefore, Chen recognizes suitable water vapor transmission rates for coffee capsules include water vapor transmission rates claimed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kuiper such that the capsule has a water vapor transmission rate of 10-100g/m2d as suggested by Chen, encompassing the claimed range, in order to provide the capsule with a known suitable water vapor transmission rate for coffee capsules.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the new limitations Andreae US 2017/0158422 has been brought to teach substitution of the functional barrier layer of Kuiper.
On Pg. 8 of the remarks Applicant argues that Kuiper does not disclose that paper contains wood pulp.
This argument has not been found persuasive, as paper commonly contains wood pulp, Kuiper does not require the paper to be a special paper made from a specific composition, therefore it is obvious that paper as taught by Kuiper can encompass commonly contained components of paper. Yoshiba US 2023/0036459 discloses examples of types of pulp contained in paper include wood pulp ([0031]). It is noted that the claims recite “a fiber layer comprising wood pulp”.
On Pg. 9-10 of the remarks Applicant argues that Kuiper does not disclose the specific combination of these features together with the required fiber differentiation as recited independent claim 1. More specifically, Applicant argues that Kuiper does not disclose allocating fluff pulp to the bottom and side wall while allocating wood pulp to the lid as currently claimed.
This argument has not been found persuasive; Kuiper specifically discloses that packaging unit 302 is manufactured from fluff pulp (see paragraphs [0137]-[0139]), and in an embodiment the lid (multilayer 310) does not specifically comprise fluff pulp but can comprise a paper layer and as discussed above paper necessarily contains wood pulp. Paragraphs [0137]-[0139] clearly provide for the combination of a bottom and sidewall made from fluff pulp (packaging unit 302 is manufactured from a moulded pulp or fluff pulp material) and the lid (packaging element 310) comprising a fiber layer comprising wood pulp (paper layer 10f) ([0138]). Additionally, it would have been obvious to have utilized any of the embodiments of the lid (multilayer 10, 210, 310, etc) as the lid for the capsule. Therefore, Kuiper makes obvious the use of the claimed combination of layers for the bottom and sidewall and lid.
In response to Applicants arguments on Pg 10 regarding the water vapor transmission rate, while claims 14, and 16-17 differs from Kuiper in the recitation that Kuiper explicitly teaches providing the capsule with the claimed transmission rate using the claimed measurement standard, it is however noted that Kuiper suggests providing a packaging material with the claimed water vapor transmission rate (Table 1, [0149], [0152]-[0153]) utilizing another measurement standard. Kuiper shows that the water vapor transmission rate can vary based on the particular films used with the multilayer 10, 20 ([0151]-[0152], Table 1). Kuiper teaches that providing low water vapor transmission rate reduces the loss of aroma due to high WVTR, therefore it would have been obvious to routinely adjust the water vapor transmission rate in order to achieve a desired aroma retention of the product ([0153]) (MPEP 2144.05.II). Additionally, while paragraph [0024] discusses lower water vapor transmission rates, Table 1 still includes a water vapor transmission within the claimed range and “A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including nonpreferred embodiments” (MPEP 2123). Additionally, Chen discloses providing a composite material that is used to form a coffee capsule with a water vapor transmission rate of 10-100g/m2d ([0050], [0076], claim 33, 39, 43). Therefore, Chen recognizes suitable water vapor transmission rates for coffee capsules include water vapor transmission rates claimed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kuiper such that the capsule has a water vapor transmission rate of 20-100g/m2d as suggested by Chen, in order to provide the capsule with a known suitable water vapor transmission rate for coffee capsules.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
Prosecution Insights