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 1-9 in the reply filed on 12/15/2025 is acknowledged. Claim 10 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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)(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.
Claims 1-5, 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yoakim US 2024/0300731.
Regarding claim 1, Yoakim discloses a single serve capsule (Fig. 8) for preparing a beverage with aid of a beverage preparation machine (4) having a base element with a cavity for receiving a beverage raw material ([0006], [0068]), and a capsule lid (closing member 56) which closes the cavity ([0103]); the base element comprising a capsule base, an encircling flange (60) and a capsule wall which extends from the capsule base to the encircling flange (the flange portion 60 is arranged integrally with the storage portion 58) (Fig. 8, [0103]); the capsule lid (56) being fastened to the flange ([0134]); the single serve capsule having an optically detectable feature (code 44) which is optically detectable by a detector of the beverage preparation machine ([0060]), wherein the encircling flange (flange 60) is at least in part configured to be optically transparent ([0135], [0136]), and the optically detectable feature is disposed in a region of the optically transparent flange ([0127]-[0131], Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 2, Yoakim discloses the optically detectable feature (code 44) is disposed between the optically transparent flange and the capsule lid (closing member 56) ([0135]-[0136], [0127]-[0131], Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 3, Yoakim discloses that the optically detectable feature (code 44) is disposed on a side of the capsule lid facing the optically transparent flange ([0135]-[0136], [0127]-[0131], Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 4, Yoakim discloses that the optically detectable feature (code 44) is disposed in a peripheral region of the capsule lid in terms of a plane of the main extent of the capsule lid (Fig. 10-11).
Regarding claim 5, Yoakim discloses that the optically detectable feature (code 44) is disposed on a side of the optically transparent flange facing the capsule lid (Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 7, Yoakim discloses that the base element is configured so as to be completely optically transparent ([0018]).
Regarding claim 9, Yoakim discloses that the optically detectable feature is a machine-readable code ([0060], [0090]).
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoakim US 2024/0300731 in view of Magri et al. US 2014/0295032.
Regarding claim 6, Yoakim discloses that the single serve capsule comprises an insert and the optically detectable feature is disposed on the insert, the insert being disposed between the flange and the capsule lid ([0011], [0025], [0129]).
Claim 6 differs from Yoakim in the recitation that the insert is specifically a ring, however given the code is obviously an annular code (Fig. 10), it is obvious that the insert would also have an annular shape (i.e. ring). In any case Magri discloses an optically readable code support that has an annular configuration so that it can be associated to a capsule ([0071], [0078], [0081], Fig. 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the insert of Yoakim to specifically be ring shaped as taught by Magri in order to provide a suitably shaped support for the optically detectable feature. It has been held that “Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” supports a conclusion of obviousness (MPEP 2143.I.A).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoakim US 2024/0300731.
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 differs from Yoakim in the recitation that the base element is constructed in two parts, of a base part and a flange part, wherein only the flange part is configured to be optically transparent and wherein the base part and the flange part are connected to each other.
However, Yoakim discloses that in some embodiments the entire flange is formed from the at least partially transparent member ([0017]), and that in some embodiments the flange and storage portion are integrally formed of the same material ([0018]). Yoakim discloses that forming the storage portion from the transparent material is optional ([0136]). Therefore, Yoakim suggests that only the flange can be made from transparent material and therefore this obviously suggests that the base element can be constructed in two parts, of a base part and a flange part, wherein only the flange part is configured to be optically transparent and wherein the base part and the flange part are connected to each other.
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