DETAILED ACTION
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
Figure 13 does not show reference sign 20’ as set forth in the specification.
The specification recites that reference sign 44 is shown in figures 6C, 7C, and 12C. Figures 6C, 7C, and 12C do not show reference sign 44.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference signs "34" and "36" have both been used to indicate the same capsule features in the spec in figures 6B, 7B, 8, 9A, 10, 11, and 12B.
Reference signs 18 and 20 appear to designate a cavity in figure 1.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 18.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference signs 46 and 48 appear to depict the same features as reference signs 34 and 36 in figures 6B, 7B, and 8.
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. 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In the specification reference sign 44 is used to designate an “O” ring comprising an optically detectable feature or some other element that can function to form a seal between the capsule and a machine.
As recited in the specification reference sign 38 has been used to depict a central longitudinal axis in figures 4 and 5 but is also recited in the specification as depicting webs, elevations, protrusions, and non-clearances.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 – 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jarisch et al. US 2013/0064937 in view of Rossomando et al. US 2018/0215533.
Regarding claim 1, Jarisch discloses a single serve capsule (7) capable of preparing a beverage with aid of a beverage preparation machine, the single serve capsule (10) has a base element (cup shaped body 69) with a cavity (20) capable of receiving a beverage raw material (ingredient), and a capsule lid (60) which closes the cavity (paragraph [0036], [0064]). The base element comprises a capsule base, an encircling flange (73), a capsule wall extends from the capsule base to the encircling flange, and the capsule lid (60) is fastened to the encircling flange. The single serve capsule has an optically detectable feature (code 70) which is optically detectable by a detector (62) of the beverage preparation machine and which is disposed on a side of the encircling flange (73) facing away from the capsule lid (60) (paragraph [00063] – [0082] and fig. 4).
Claim 1 differs from Jarisch in the single serve capsule having a further base element which at least partially surrounds the base element.
Rossomando discloses a single serve capsule (1) capable of preparing a beverage with the aid of a beverage preparation machine which single serve capsule has a base element with a cavity (tubular body 2) capable of receiving a beverage raw material (coffee) and a capsule lid (3) which closes the cavity (paragraph [0088]). The base element comprises a capsule base, an encircling flange, a capsule wall which extends from the capsule base to the encircling flange (ring 7), and the capsule lid is fastened to the encircling flange (paragraph [0128] and fig. 11 and 21). Further, the single serve capsule has a further base element (reinforcement means 4) (paragraph [0111] and fig. 11) (paragraph [0145] and fig. 21) which at least partially surrounds the base element (2). Rossomando is providing a further base element which at least partially surrounds the base element for the art recognized function of opposing resistance to pressure acting on the single serve capsule capable of preparing a beverage during injection of a fluid solution under pressure (paragraph [0017]). To therefore modify Jarisch and provide a further base element to a single serve capsule to provide opposing resistance to pressure acting on the single serve capsule capable of preparing a beverage during injection of a fluid solution under pressure as taught by Rossomando would have been an obvious matter of choice and/or design to the ordinarily skilled artisan.
Regarding claim 2, Jarisch in view of Rossomando discloses the further base element comprises a further cavity in which the base element is partially disposed (‘533, fig. 11, 21).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Jarisch in view of Rossomando discloses the base element is disposed so far within the further cavity that a further capsule wall of the further base element extends parallel to the capsule wall of the base element to the flange and the further base element is free of a flange (‘533, fig. 11, 21).
Regarding claim 5, once it was known to provide a base element and a further base element where the further base element at least partially surrounds the base element it is not seen that patentability would be predicated on the region of the capsule wall of the base element to be thinner absent strong and compelling evidence to the contrary. Limitations relating to the thinness of the capsule wall would not be sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art. The mere changing of the proportions of a prior art capsule wall capable of being so scaled, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old capsule wall so scaled. Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions or “softness” of the claimed capsule wall and a capsule wall having the claimed relative dimensions/softness would not perform differently than the prior art capsule wall, the claimed capsule wall is not seen to be patentably distinct from the prior art capsule wall (MPEP § 2144.04 IV.A.).
Regarding claim 6, Jarisch discloses the single serve capsule material, i.e., a foil, can be mechanically deformed (‘937, paragraph [0091]) further citing “aluminum capsule technology” (‘937, paragraph [0093]) which would have suggested to the ordinarily skilled artisan the material of the single serve capsule base element would comprise an aluminium material. Also, given that the base element would be further encased by, that is to say at least partially surrounded by the further base element it would be expected that the base element would be more impermeable to gas than a material of the further base element by virtue of being enclosed therein.
Regarding claim 7, Jarisch in view of Rossomando disclose the base element and the further base element (reinforcement means 4) are adhesively bonded (gluing with non-toxic glues) in a planar manner in a region of the capsule walls (‘533, paragraph [0110] and fig. 2A).
Regarding claim 8, Jarisch in view of Rossomando disclose the base element (body 69) and the further base element (4) would be made of different materials (aluminum capsule technology) (‘937, paragraph [0093]) (paper) (‘533, paragraph [0145]).
Regarding claim 9, Jarisch in view of Rossomando discloses the optically detectable feature (optical code) would be a bit code (‘937, paragraph [0017]).
Regarding claim 10 Jarisch in view of Rossomando discloses a method of preparing a beverage comprising inserting the capsule as claimed into a beverage preparation machine , introducing a liquid into the single serve capsule to interact with a beverage raw material within the single serve capsule to produce the beverage, and then discharging the beverage from the single serve capsule (‘937, claim 17)
Regarding claim 11, Jarisch in view of Rossomando disclose the capsule lid is capable of being perforated by the beverage preparation machine to generate perforation openings capable of discharging the beverage through the capsule lid (paragraph [0003], [0021], and fig. 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been fully and carefully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAIM A SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-7369. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 09:00-18:00.
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 please telephone the Examiner.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nikki Dees can be reached at (571) 270-3435. 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.
/C.S./
Chaim SmithExaminer, Art Unit 1791 31 August 2026
/VIREN A THAKUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights