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 .
Response to Amendment
Those objections and rejections that have not been repeated in this Office Action have been withdrawn.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and rejected.
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 9, 12 and 15-17 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.
Claim 9 recites the limitation, “the interior of the cartridge.” This limitation lacks proper antecedent basis, especially as it is not clear whether “the interior of the cartridge” is the same interior as “an interior of the housing” as recited in claim 1 and 7.
Claim 12 recites the limitation, “a single serve cartridge,” which is a relative term not defined by the claims or specification thus making the scope of what can be construed as a “single serve” unclear.
Claim 15 recites in the preamble that the claim is directed to an empty cartridge. However, on line 2, the claim recites that an opening at one end is sealed by a closure. Therefore, claim 15 is not clear whether it is intending to claim a sealed, empty cartridge, especially in light of page 7, lines 18-19 of Applicant’s specification as filed, which discloses that an empty cartridge is one in which the opening is not sealed with the closure. This is further supported by page 8, lines 18-20 which discloses filling the empty cartridge and then sealing.
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected based on their dependence to a rejected 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 7, 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Bolzicco (US 20160101929).
Regarding claims 1 and 4, Bolzicco discloses a cartridge for producing a beverage comprising a housing having the general shape of a truncated cone (see the tapered shape as shown in figure 2) defined between an opening at one end sealed by a closure (see the opening in figure 3, and the closure 3 as shown in figure 2), an end wall at an opposite end (figure 2, item 9 extending across the bottom) and a side wall converging from said opening towards said end wall (see figure 2, item 2 extending the entire longitudinal length); and
a rigid perforated dividing wall element within the housing (see figure 2, item 7 and paragraph 42, “rigid filter”).
There is, “an upper portion” of the side wall that extends “between” the rigid perforated dividing wall element and the opening as shown in annotated figure 2 below:
PNG
media_image1.png
662
851
media_image1.png
Greyscale
That is, the claim does not limit what it means to be “between” the rigid perforating dividing wall element and the opening and as such, an upper “portion” of the side wall is clearly positioned between the rigid perforated dividing wall element and the opening.
Bolzicco also teaches a lower portion of the side wall extends between the end wall and the rigid perforated dividing wall element, as shown in annotated figure 2 below:
PNG
media_image2.png
684
902
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Bolzicco further teaches that the rigid perforated dividing wall element divides an interior of the housing into a first chamber (i.e. between the filter and the opening) and a second chamber (i.e. between the filter and the end wall).
It is noted that the claims do not specifically limit the particulars of what defines the first and second chamber other than being defined by at minimum, the one end, upper portion of the side wall, the rigid perforated dividing wall element, the lower portion of the side wall and the end wall. As such, Bolzicco also teaches the first chamber is defined by the one end, said upper portion of the side wall and the rigid perforated dividing wall element:
PNG
media_image3.png
560
767
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Bolzicco further discloses that the second chamber is defined by the rigid perforated dividing wall element, the lower portion of the side wall and the end wall, as shown in annotated figure 2 below:
PNG
media_image4.png
582
754
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It is also noted that wall 4 ruptures at weakened region 5 and therefore also disclosing the filter dividing the cartridge into the first and second chambers when ruptured (see paragraph 26-28 and 30).
Bolzicco also teaches that the first chamber contains dry beverage medium (see paragraph 21).
Bolzicco teaches the perforated dividing wall element comprises holes that are dimensioned to permit passage of liquid and block passage therethrough of said dry beverage medium (see at least, paragraph 42 which discloses that the filter contains the substance held in the containment body) .
Regarding claims 2 and 4, Bolzicco teaches that the housing comprises a first and a second cup-shaped members connected to one another (see figure 2, item 2 and 80 that are connected to each other and are both “cup-shaped”). As shown in the annotated figures above, the first and second cup shaped members are construed to define the first and second chamber, respectively.
Bolzicco teaches that said first cup-shaped member comprises said opening at one end thereof (figure 2, near item 3), the rigid perforated dividing wall element at an end opposite to said one end (see figure 2, item 7) and a first side wall extending therebetween (figure 2, item 2) and therefore constituting the upper portion of the side wall (see annotated figure 2 as presented above).
Bolzicco also teaches that said second cup-shaped member (see figure 4 which shows an open end and a bottom wall) having an opening at one end thereof, said end wall at an end opposite to said one end of the second cup-shaped member (see annotated figure 2 as presented above) and a second side wall extending therebetween constituting the lower portion of the side wall (figure 4, item 80 and annotated figure 2 as presented above); and
The first and second side walls are also construed to jointly define the side wall of the cartridge, as shown in figure 2, because together the first and second side wall clearly form the cartridge.
Claim 4 repeats the limitations of claims 1 and 2 and therefore is rejected for the same reasons as given above with respect to claims 1 and 2 while being broader as the claim does not require the housing to have the general shape of a truncated cone.
Regarding claims 3 and 5, Bolzicco discloses the two members are joined to one another by fitting a portion of an inner face of the second side wall adjacent the second member’s opening (see figure 2, item 82) over a bottom portion of an outer face of the first side wall adjacent the perforated wall element (see figure 2, item 41) and joining the two portions to one another (see paragraph 35, “mechanical interference”).
Regarding claim 7, Bolzicco discloses that the rigid perforated wall element is formed by a perforated insertable element that is configured to be received within the interior of the housing, the perforated insertable element dividing the interior into first chamber and said second chamber (see figure 2, item 7 and paragraph 42 disclosing a rigid filter that is inserted into the first chamber since it lies on the circumferential step).
Regarding claim 10, Bolzicco’s cartridge is configured for fitting within a cartridge receptacle of a beverage producing machine (paragraph 46) with the closure being pierceable by a probe of said beverage producing machine for introducing liquid (see paragraph 46, “the cover is perforated a punch…”) and the end wall is “configured for engagement” with an outlet arrangement of said machine for extracting beverage from the cartridge.
Regarding claim 12, Bolzicco discloses what can be construed as a single serve cartridge because neither the claims nor specification define what it means to be a single serve cartridge. That is, a single serving can vary depending on the particular use case and Bolzicco discloses a cartridge that is inserted into a machine for preparing a beverage of a given volume and for receiving a defined volume of water (paragraph 46) and therefore can be construed as a cartridge that can provide a single serving and is therefore a single serve cartridge. The limitations directed to receiving a volume of water through the probe of the beverage producing machine for extracting a volume of beverage through the outlet arrangement of the beverage preparation machine are seen to be intended use limitations. Since the claim is directed to the cartridge and not the method of using the cartridge, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use then it meets the 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 1-5, 7, 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bolzicco (US 20160101929) in view of Bolzicco (US 20080257165, i.e. Bolzicco165)
Regarding claims 1 and 4, Bolzicco has been incorporated herein, as already discussed above under 35 U.S.C. 102a1.
If it could have been construed that the rigid perforated dividing wall element as shown in figure 2 of Bolzicco did not result in teaching an upper portion of the side wall extending “between” the rigid perforated dividing wall element and the opening, and a lower portion of the side wall extending “between” the rigid perforated dividing wall element and the end wall, then it is noted that Bolzicco incorporates Bolzicco165 by reference (see paragraph 42 where EP1982933 is equivalent to US 20080257165). Bolzicco165 teaches that the rigid perforated dividing wall element (5b) extends to the side wall (see figure 2) and an upper portion is between the rigid perforated dividing wall element (5b) and the opening to define a first chamber, and a lower portion of the side wall is between the rigid perforated dividing wall element and the end wall to define a lower chamber. See annotated figure 2 of Bolzicco165 below:
PNG
media_image5.png
536
814
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
320
733
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Since Bolzicco already teaches and suggests using a rigid perforated dividing wall element as shown by Bolzicco165, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use the rigid perforated dividing wall element as taught by Bolzicco165 for preventing the filter from breaking under pressure (see Bolzicco165, paragraph 7).
Regarding claims 2 and 4, Bolzicco teaches that the housing comprises a first and a second cup-shaped members connected to one another (see figure 2, item 2 and 80 that are connected to each other and are both “cup-shaped”). As shown in the annotated figures above, the first and second cup shaped members are construed to define the first and second chamber, respectively.
Bolzicco teaches that said first cup-shaped member comprises said opening at one end thereof (figure 2, near item 3), the perforated dividing wall element at an end opposite to said one end (see figure 2, item 7) and a first side wall extending therebetween (figure 2, item 2) and therefore constituting the upper portion of the side wall (see annotated figure 2 as presented above).
Bolzicco also teaches that said second cup-shaped member (see figure 4 which shows an open end and a bottom wall) having an opening at one end thereof, said end wall at an end opposite to said one end of the second cup-shaped member (see annotated figure 2 as presented above) and a second side wall extending therebetween constituting the lower portion of the side wall (figure 4, item 80 and annotated figure 2 as presented above); and
The first and second side walls are also construed to jointly define the side wall of the cartridge, as shown in figure 2, because together the first and second side wall clearly form the cartridge.
Claim 4 repeats the limitations of claims 1 and 2 and therefore is rejected for the same reasons as given above with respect to claims 1 and 2 while being broader as the claim does not require the housing to have the general shape of a truncated cone.
Regarding claims 3 and 5, Bolzicco discloses the two members are joined to one another by fitting a portion of an inner face of the second side wall adjacent the second member’s opening (see figure 2, item 82) over a bottom portion of an outer face of the first side wall adjacent the perforated wall element (see figure 2, item 41) and joining the two portions to one another (see paragraph 35, “mechanical interference”).
Regarding claim 7, Bolzicco discloses that the rigid perforated wall element is formed by a perforated insertable element that is configured to be received within the interior of the housing, the perforated insertable element dividing the interior into first chamber and said second chamber (see figure 2, item 7 and paragraph 42 disclosing a rigid filter that is inserted into the first chamber since it lies on the circumferential step).
Regarding claim 10, Bolzicco’s cartridge is configured for fitting within a cartridge receptacle of a beverage producing machine (paragraph 46) with the closure being pierceable by a probe of said beverage producing machine for introducing liquid (see paragraph 46, “the cover is perforated a punch…”) and the end wall is “configured for engagement” with an outlet arrangement of said machine for extracting beverage from the cartridge.
Regarding claim 12, Bolzicco discloses what can be construed as a single serve cartridge because neither the claims nor specification define what it means to be a single serve cartridge. That is, a single serving can vary depending on the particular use case and Bolzicco discloses a cartridge that is inserted into a machine for preparing a beverage of a given volume and for receiving a defined volume of water (paragraph 46) and therefore can be construed as a cartridge that can provide a single serving and is therefore a single serve cartridge. The limitations directed to receiving a volume of water through the probe of the beverage producing machine for extracting a volume of beverage through the outlet arrangement of the beverage preparation machine are seen to be intended use limitations. Since the claim is directed to the cartridge and not the method of using the cartridge, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use then it meets the claim.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bolzicco (US 20160101929) or Bolzicco (US 20160101929) in view of Bolzicco (US 20080257165, i.e. Bolzicco165), both in further view of Liverani (US 20070186784).
Regarding claim 15, it is noted that the claim is unclear in light of the preamble reciting “an empty cartridge” while the body of the claim recites that the cartridge opening is sealed by a closure.
Regarding the specific structure, claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons as given above with respect to claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 and 103, which rely on Bolzicco and the Bolzicco/Bolzicco165 combination.
Regarding the cartridge being an empty cartridge but having an opening at one end sealed by a closure, it is noted that Bolzicco teaches that the contents can be soluble coffee or a concentrate (see paragraph 23), such that after use, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that there would have been a closure on the opening but that the cartridge would also have been empty.
Nonetheless, it is also noted that Liverani teaches a cartridge with a closure that comprises a valve (see paragraph 110 disclosing the lid can comprise a valve; figure 5, item 16b) that can open and subsequently close air-tightly for allowing liquid to enter the capsule (see paragraph 112). Liverani teaches that the valve can protect the cartridge from negative environmental effects while also allowing for degassing of the cartridge and allowing for the injection of inert gas during packaging (see paragraph 128)
To therefore modify Bolzicco and to use a resealable closure to close Bolzicco’s opening would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art for allowing Bolzicco’s cartridge to degas as well as for being able to introduce an inert gas into the cartridge for protecting the contents. In view of this modification, the combination teaches an empty cartridge, such as after being used, that is also sealed.
Regarding claim 16, Bolzicco discloses the two members are joined to one another by fitting a portion of an inner face of the second side wall adjacent the second member’s opening (see figure 2, item 82) over a bottom portion of an outer face of the first side wall adjacent the perforated wall element (see figure 2, item 41) and joining the two portions to one another (see paragraph 35, “mechanical interference”).
Claims 6 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bolzicco (US 20160101929) or Bolzicco (US 20160101929) in view of Bolzicco (US 20080257165, i.e. Bolzicco165), as applied to claim 1 and 15, and both in further view of Bugajew (WO 2020089292) and GVB (EP 2030914).
Claims 6 and 17 differ from Bolzicco and the Bolzicco/Bolzicco165 combination in specifically reciting that the rigid perforated dividing wall element is integral with the housing or an element thereof.
It is initially noted however, that it is not seen that patentability can be predicated on making the perforated dividing wall element integral with the cup shaped housing or an element thereof when the differences would otherwise have been obvious (see MPEP 2144.04(V)(B) & (C)).
In any event, it is further noted that Bugajew a perforated wall element that can also serve as a filter and which is integral with the cup-shaped housing or an element thereof (see figure 10, item 15’’’ and page 14, lines 2-3). Bugajew also teaches that there is a perforable film that can be positioned below the filter element (see figure 16, item 120 and page 17, 3rd and 2nd to last paragraphs). This is similar to Bolzicco.
GVB also teaches a filter integrated into the bottom of the container for reducing the number of components required to manufacture the capsule and to therefore provide reduced cost and faster manufacturing (see paragraph 26 of the machine translation and figure 2, where the filter is positioned above reference character 4, as integral to the capsule. The filter of GVB also divides the cartridge into a first chamber between an opening and the filter and a second chamber between the filter and a bottom wall.
To therefore modify Bolzicco and the Bolzicco/Bolzicco165 combination and to make Bolzicco’s rigid perforated dividing wall element as integral with the cup shaped housing or an element thereof would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, as an obvious matter of engineering and/or design, based on conventional expedients by which a filter can be associated with a beverage cartridge and which can divide the beverage cartridge into two chambers and for reducing the cost of making the cartridge as well as making the manufacturing faster.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bolzicco (US 20160101929) or Bolzicco (US 20160101929) in view of Bolzicco (US 20080257165, i.e. Bolzicco165), both in further view of Vanni (US 8656827). The definition of “fold” has been relied on as evidence.
Regarding claim 8, Bolzicco discloses that first and second cup-shaped members are connected to one another at respective first and second connecting ends (figure 2, where the first 2 and second 80 members are both cup shaped and connected to one another at connecting ends 41 and 82).
The limitation “an inward-directed fold that defines a shoulder for supporting the perforated insertable element” has been construed to mean that there is a bend that is pointing to the interior of the capsule against which is supported the perforated insertable element. In this regard, Bolzicco discloses that the connecting end 41 also has an inwardly directed shoulder against which the perforated insertable element can be supported:
PNG
media_image7.png
394
636
media_image7.png
Greyscale
It is further noted that the definition of “fold” can mean to bend and in this regard, Bolzicco can be construed as teaching an inward-directed fold that defines “a shoulder.”
It is further noted that Vanni teaches a beverage producing cartridge, that comprises a first connecting end that comprises an inward fold that defines a shoulder (see figure 1, item 2d) used to support a filter (see figure 1, item 7). The first connecting end is also used to engage with a second connecting end of a second cup-shaped member (see figure 1, item 2e and column 2, lines 50-54).
To therefore modify Bolzicco and the Bolzicco/Bolzicco165 combination and to provide an inward directed fold that defines a shoulder for supporting the perforated element would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art based on known expedients for how to support a filter within a first cup shaped member that is coupled with a second cup shaped member to produce a beverage producing cartridge.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bolzicco (US 20160101929) or Bolzicco (US 20160101929) in view of Bolzicco (US 20080257165, i.e. Bolzicco165), as applied to claim 7, and in further view of Parve (US 20200180856) and Dran (US 20120201933)
Claim 9 differs from Bolzicco and the Bolzicco/Bolzicco165 combination in specifically reciting that “said perforated insertable element comprises a projection that is configured to engage with a counterpart recess in the interior of the cartridge to secure the perforated insertable element in position within the housing.”
Parve teaches that a known expedient for how to secure a filter wall into the interior of a single serve beverage cartridge is to snap fit the filter disc (see figure 4, item 200) into the capsule (see paragraph 5, last sentence and paragraph 35) so as to prevent beverage materials from exiting the pod and entering the prepared beverage (see paragraph 2, 2nd to last sentence). As shown in figure 5, the filter comprises a projection (see figure 5, item 212) that is configured to engage with a recess in the interior of the cartridge (see figure 5, and the space below the protuberance 134 which is a recess).
Dran also teaches snap-fitting a filter into position by receiving a projection fo the filter into a recess on the cartridge (see figure 6, item 24, 52, 54 and paragraph 35 and 38)
Since Bolzicco does not provide any specificity as to how the rigid perforated dividing wall element has been affixed, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified Bolzicco and the Bolzicco/Bolzicco165 combination and to have used a snap fit connection where the perforated insertable element comprises a projection that engages with a recess in the interior of the cartridge, as taught by Parve and Dran, for the purpose of ensuring that Bolzicco’s filtering wall remains in position and prevents beverage materials from bypassing the filter.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bolzicco (US 20160101929) or Bolzicco (US 20160101929) in view of Bolzicco (US 20080257165, i.e. Bolzicco165), both in further view of Stefanoni (US 20180134485).
Claim 11 differs from Bolzicco and the Bolzicco/Bolzicco165 combination in specifically reciting that “the end wall is pierceable by a tubular outlet probe of said machine.”
It is initially noted however that this is an intended use such that there would have been some degree of capability of Bolzicco’s end wall to be pierceable.
Nonetheless, it is noted that Stefanoni teaches a beverage capsule with a dispensing outlet (see figure 3, item 116) which is similar to Bolzicco’s outlet at figure 2, item 9). Stefanoni teaches that such an outlet can also have a pierceable film or removable lid affixed thereto (see paragraph 67). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the use of a pierceable film or removal lid covering the outlet would have been useful for preventing contaminants from entering the lower portion of the capsule prior to use.
To therefore modify Bolzicco and the Bolzicco/Bolzicco165 combination and to also include a pierceable portion to Bolzicco’s end wall would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, for the purpose of minimizing contamination to Bolzicco’s lower cup shaped portion prior to use. Such a modification would have resulted in Bolzicco’s capsule also being capable of being pierced by a tubular outlet probe of a beverage producing machine.
Claims 13 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bolzicco (US 20160101929), or Bolzicco (US 20160101929) in view of Bolzicco (US 20080257165, i.e. Bolzicco165).
Regarding claim 13, the claim repeats the structure as recited in claim 1 with the exception that the claim is directed to an empty cartridge instead of a cartridge with a dry beverage ingredient therein. Therefore, Bolzicco and the Bolzicco/Bolzicco165 combination have been incorporated herein as already discussed above with respect to claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 and 35 U.S.C. 103.
Bolzicco does not specifically disclose an “empty cartridge.”
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that prior to the cover 3 being applied to the opening (see figure 2) that a dose of a dry beverage ingredient would have been filled into the first chamber. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that Bolzicco would obviously have suggested an unsealed, empty cartridge that would have been capable of being subsequently filled and sealed.
Regarding the specific structure of the cup shaped housing, the rigid perforated wall element within the housing and dividing the housing interior into a first and second chamber, Bolzicco and the Bolzicco/Bolzicco165 combination have been relied on as already discussed above under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 and 103 regarding claim 1, and these teachings have been incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 18, Bolzicco discloses that the rigid perforated dividing wall element is formed by a perforated insertable element that is configured to be received within the interior of the housing to thereby divide the interior of the housing, the perforated insertable element dividing the interior into said first chamber and said second chamber (see figure 2, item 7 which divides the housing into a first chamber that is above item 7 and a lower chamber including the region below the filter as shown in figure 3 as well as the region near item 8; see also paragraph 42 disclosing a rigid filter that is inserted into the first chamber since it lies on the circumferential step). In view of Bolzicco165 as already applied to claim 1, the combination further teaches a rigid perorated dividing wall element within the cartridge that also divides the cartridge into a first and second chamber. Claim 18 recites that the perforated insertable element is ”configured to be received within the housing’s interior.”
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bolzicco (US 20160101929) or Bolzicco (US 20160101929) in view of Bolzicco (US 20080257165, i.e. Bolzicco165), as applied to claim 13 above, and in further view of DesJardin (US 20190389605).
Regarding claim 14, the claim repeats the structure as recited in claim 2 with the exception that the claim is directed to an empty cartridge instead of a cartridge with a dry beverage ingredient therein. The teachings of Bolzicco and the Bolzicco/Bolzicco165 combination as applied to claim 2 have been incorporated herein.
In view of this it is initially noted that while Bolzicco does not specifically disclose an “empty cartridge” it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that prior to the cover 3 being applied to the opening (see figure 2) that a dose of a dry beverage ingredient would have been filled into the first chamber. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that Bolzicco would obviously have suggested an unsealed, empty cartridge that would have been capable of being subsequently filled and sealed.
Further regarding claim 14, if it could have been construed that Bolzicco and the Bolzicco/Bolzicco165 combination did not specifically teach that the first and second cup shaped members together and as part of an empty cartridge, then it is noted that DesJardin teaches providing the entirety of the capsule to a filling machine (see figure 4), such that there is an empty cartridge that allows for a consumer to fill and seal the cartridge to allow for a customized beverage cartridge (see figure 6 and paragraphs 31 and 45).
To therefore modify Bolzicco and the Bolzicco/Bolzicco165 combination and to provide an empty cartridge would therefore have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, for the purpose of allowing a user to customize the particular type of dry beverage medium to be filled and then sealed within the cartridge.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bolzicco (US 20160101929) or Bolzicco (US 20160101929) in view of Bolzicco (US 20080257165, i.e. Bolzicco165) as applied to claim 18, both in further view of Vanni (US 8656827). The definition of “fold” has been relied on as evidence.
Regarding claim 19, Bolzicco discloses that first and second cup-shaped members are connected to one another at respective first and second connecting ends (figure 2, where the first 2 and second 80 members are both cup shaped and connected to one another at connecting ends 41 and 82).
The limitation “an inward-directed fold that defines a shoulder for supporting the perforated insertable element” has been construed to mean that there is a bend that is pointing to the interior of the capsule against which is supported the perforated insertable element. In this regard, Bolzicco discloses that the connecting end 41 also has an inwardly directed shoulder against which the perforated insertable element can be supported:
PNG
media_image7.png
394
636
media_image7.png
Greyscale
It is further noted that the definition of “fold” can mean to bend and in this regard, Bolzicco can be construed as teaching an inward-directed fold that defines “a shoulder.”
It is further noted that Vanni teaches a beverage producing cartridge, that comprises a first connecting end that comprises an inward fold that defines a shoulder (see figure 1, item 2d) used to support a filter (see figure 1, item 7). The first connecting end is also used to engage with a second connecting end of a second cup-shaped member (see figure 1, item 2e and column 2, lines 50-54).
To therefore modify Bolzicco and the Bolzicco/Bolzicco165 combination and to provide an inward directed fold that defines a shoulder for supporting the perforated element would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art based on known expedients for how to support a filter within a first cup shaped member that is coupled with a second cup shaped member to produce a beverage producing cartridge.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bolzicco (US 20160101929) or Bolzicco (US 20160101929) in view of Bolzicco (US 20080257165, i.e. Bolzicco165), as applied to claim 18, and in further view of Parve (US 20200180856) and Dran (US 20120201933)
Claim 20 differs from Bolzicco and the Bolzicco/Bolzicco165 combination in specifically reciting that “said perforated insertable element comprises a projection that is configured to engage with a counterpart recess in the interior of the cartridge to secure the perforated insertable element in position within the housing.”
Parve teaches that a known expedient for how to secure a filter wall into the interior of a single serve beverage cartridge is to snap fit the filter disc (see figure 4, item 200) into the capsule (see paragraph 5, last sentence and paragraph 35) so as to prevent beverage materials from exiting the pod and entering the prepared beverage (see paragraph 2, 2nd to last sentence). As shown in figure 5, the filter comprises a projection (see figure 5, item 212) that is configured to engage with a recess in the interior of the cartridge (see figure 5, and the space below the protuberance 134 which is a recess).
Dran also teaches snap-fitting a filter into position by receiving a projection fo the filter into a recess on the cartridge (see figure 6, item 24, 52, 54 and paragraph 35 and 38)
Since Bolzicco does not provide any specificity as to how the rigid perforated dividing wall element has been affixed, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified Bolzicco and the Bolzicco/Bolzicco165 combination and to have used a snap fit connection where the perforated insertable element comprises a projection that engages with a recess in the interior of the cartridge, as taught by Parve and Dran, for the purpose of ensuring that Bolzicco’s filtering wall remains in position and prevents beverage materials from bypassing the filter.
Response to Arguments
On page 15-16 of the response, Applicant urges that Bolzicco does not teach, (i) an upper portion of the side wall extends between the rigid perforated dividing wall element and the opening and a lower portion of the side wall extends between the end wall and the rigid perforated dividing wall element and (ii) the rigid perforate dividing wall element dividing an interior of the housing into a first chamber and a second chamber; Applicant urges that since Bolzicco’s filter 7 rests on raised portions 6 and is spaced from the side wall and without any structural relationship to the side wall, Bolzicco does not teach, suggest or imply that the upper portion of the cartridge’s side wall extends between the filter and the cartridge opening and that the lower portion of the cartridge side wall extends between the cartridge end wall and the filter. Applicant urges that filter 7 is not a dividing wall element that divides any interior of the cartridge into a first chamber and a second chamber.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. By reciting that there is an upper and lower “portion” of the side wall between the rigid perforated dividing wall and the respective opening and end wall, the claim does not specifically recite that the upper and lower portions of the side wall are connected to and extend from the rigid perforated dividing wall. As shown in Bolzicco’s annotated figures, there are upper and lower portions of the first and second side wall that extend between Bolzicco’s rigid perforated dividing wall element and the respective opening and end wall. Additionally, filter 7 can still be construed as dividing the cartridge into two chambers because there is a region above the filter and another region below the filter.
Further on pages 15-16 of the response, Applicant urges that Bolzicco does not teach or suggest (iii) the first chamber being defined by said one end, said upper portion of the side wall and said rigid perforated dividing wall element…the second chamber being defined by said rigid perforated dividing wall element, said lower portion of the side wall and said end wall. Applicant urges that the between Bolzicco’s filter 7 and bottom wall 9 lies wall 4 of the containment body which is a physical barrier between the support 80 and the interior of the containment body 2, such that Bolzicco does not constitute a single enclosed volume in the cartridge, let alone an enclosed volume defined by the filter, the bottom wall and the side wall of the cartridge. Similar to this, Applicant urges that Bolzicco’s space between filter 7 and cover 3 is not a volume defined by the filter, the cover and the side wall.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. These arguments are not persuasive to overcome the rejection because the claims do not structurally link the side wall as extending from a periphery of the rigid perforated dividing wall element, for example, but rather, only recite that the first and second chambers are “defined by” the rigid perforated dividing wall together with an upper portion and a lower portion of the side wall and an open end and an end wall. That is, to be defined by the above structural elements does not exclude the first and second chamber from having other elements that can also define said chambers. Additionally, the claims do not specifically recite that the first and second chambers comprise a “single enclosed volume” or volume that is in fluid communication with each other. Therefore, the arguments are not commensurate in scope with the claims. It is also noted however, that upon rupture of wall 4, the upper and lower chambers of Bolzicco would be in fluid communication.
The remainder of Applicant’s arguments on pages 17-19 reiterate those remarks presented above.
These urgings are not sufficient for the reasons already discussed above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Richardson (US 20200087057) discloses filter materials that provide for a rigid perforated filter element (paragraph 98).
Shimada (EP 0211511) discloses a cartridge comprising a filter that separates the cartridge into a first and second chamber (see figure 8, item 27)
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 VIREN THAKUR whose telephone number is (571)272-6694. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10:30-7:00pm.
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.
/VIREN A THAKUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights