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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "110" and "113" have both been used to designate the opening of the second cup-shaped member, as shown in figure 1C.
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: Reference character “462” as presented on page 24, line 18 of the specification cannot be found in figure 2G or 2H.
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: the specification recites the term “plain” on page 21, line 22. It appears that this should recite, “plane.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13-16, 18 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the limitation, “said wall element” and “the perforated dividing wall element” on lines 7-8.
Claim 13 recites, “said wall element” on line 6 and “the perforated dividing wall element” on line 7. While it is clear that these limitations are referring to “a rigid perforated dividing wall element”, for matters of form, the limitations should be amended to recite, “the rigid perforated dividing wall element.”
Claim 2 recites the limitation, “the first member” and “the second member” on lines 7 and 9, respectively. Claim 4 recites these same limitations on lines 16 and 18. Claim 14 recites “the first member” on line 7 and “the second member” on line 9 as does Claim 15, on lines 17 and 19. On page 5, lines 11-12 and page 21, liens 13-15, Applicant’s specification indicates that the “two cup-shaped members” and the “first cup-shaped member” and the “second cup shaped member”, that are joined to one another, are also referred to herein as “first member” and “second member.” In view of this, the limitations “the first member” and “the second member” are clear, however, for matters of form, the limitations should be amended to recite, “the first cup-shaped member” and “the second cup-shaped member.”
Claim 2, line 7; Claim 3, line 1; Claim 4, line 16; Claim 5, line 1; Claim 14, line 7; Claim 15, line 17 and Claim 16, line 1, recite the limitation, “the two members.” On page 5, lines 11-12 and 15-21 and page 21, lines 13-15, the specification as filed is clear that “the two members” refers to “the first cup-shaped member” and “the second cup-shaped member.” However, for matters of form, this limitation should be amended to recite, “the first and second cup-shaped members.”
Claims 3 and 16 recite the limitation, “the second member’s opening.” For matters of form, this limitation should be amended to recite, “the opening of the second cup-shaped member.”
Claim 7 recites the term, “it.” While it is clear that “it” is referring to an interior of the housing, the term, “it” should be amended to recite, “the interior.”
Claim 9 recites the limitation, “said insert.” Claim 9 depends from claim 7, which recites “a perforated insertable element.” Applicant’s specification on page 6, line 5-6 states “a perforated insertable element (which may be referred to herein also as “insert”)”. In light of Applicant’s disclosure, it is clear that “said insert” is referring to “a perforated insertable element” as recited in claim 7, however for matters of form, the claim 9 limitation of, “said insert” should be amended to recite, “said perforated insertable element.”
Claims 9 and 20 recite the limitation, “to secure it in position.” It is clear that “it” is referring to “said insert” and therefore should be accordingly amended to recite, “said perforated insertable element.”
Claim 10, lines 2 and 4; and claim 11, line 2 recite “said machine”. It is clear that this is referring to “a beverage producing machine” and for matters of form should be amended to recite, “said beverage producing machine.”
Claim 18 recites, “the housing in to thereby.” It appears that the term “in” should be deleted.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 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 1, line 3; claim 4, line 2-3; claim 13, line 3; claim 15, lines 2-3, recite the limitation, “the other end”, which lacks proper antecedent basis because the claims are not clear as to what “other end” is being referred to.
Claim 1 and Claim 4, lines 5-6; Claim 7, line 2; and Claim 13, line 4; Claim 15, lines 5-6; Claim 18, line 3, recite the limitation, “the housing’s interior”, which lacks proper antecedent basis. There is no previous recitation of “an interior of the housing,” thus making the limitation lack proper antecedent basis. This rejection can be overcome by amending the claim to recite an interior defined by the one end sealed by the closure, the end wall and the side wall.
Claim 2 recites, “the perforated wall element of the cartridge” on lines 8-9 and claim 4 recites, “said dividing member of the cartridge” on lines 17-18 and claim 14 recites, “the perforated wall element of the cartridge” on lines 8-9 and claim 15 recites, “said dividing member of the cartridge,” all of which lack proper antecedent basis, as it is not clear if these limitations are intending to refer to “a rigid perforated dividing wall element” as recited in claim 1, 4, 13 and 15 or some other perforated wall element.
Claim 2, lines 7-8; claim 4, lines 16-17; claim 14, lines 7-8; and claim 15, lines 17-18 recite the limitation, “the opening of the first member constitutes said opening of the cartridge.” As “the opening of the first member” is also an opening of the cartridge, the claim limitation is indefinite as being circular in nature. This rejection can be overcome by amending claims 2, 4, 14 and 15 to recite:
“the housing comprises first and second cup-shaped members connected to one another and said first cup-shaped member defining the first chamber and the second sup-shaped member defining the second chamber;
said first-cup shaped member comprises said opening at said one end, said rigid perforated dividing wall element at an end opposite to said one end and a first side wall extending between said one end and said end opposite to said one end;
said second cup-shaped member having an opening at one end and said end wall at an end opposite to said one end and a second side wall therebetween and the first side wall and the second sidewall jointly defining said side wall.”
Claim 3 recites, “the perforated wall element” which lacks proper antecedent basis because it is not clear whether this is intending to refer to “the perforated wall” as recited in claim 2 or “a rigid perforated dividing wall element” as recited in claim 1.
Claims 3, 5, 9 and 20 recite the limitation, “tightly” which is a relative term that has not been defined by the claims or specification, thus making the scope of what can be construed as “tightly” unclear.
Claim 4 recites the limitation, “said perforated element” on line 7; “said perforated dividing member” on line 8; and “the perforated dividing wall” on lines 8-9, all of which lack proper antecedent basis.
Claims 4, 13 and 15 recite the limitation, “generally” which is a relative term that has not been defined by the claims or specification, thus making the scope of what can be construed as “generally converging” and “generally cup-shaped” unclear.
Claim 6 recites the limitation, “any one of claims 1,” which is indefinite because it appears to refer to any one of a plurality of claims while also only referring to claim 1. For examination purposes, the claim has been construed to depend from claim 1 however, correction is required.
Claim 7 recites, “the perforated wall element” which lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claims 7 and 18 recite, “the perforated wall element is formed by a perforated insertable element that is configured to be received within the housing’s interior.” This limitation is unclear because claims 1 and 13 already recite that the housing contains a rigid perforated wall element, while the limitation of, “configured to be received” as recited in claims 7 and 18 appears to also imply that the perforated insertable element is not yet within the housing. Clarification is required.
Claim 8 recites the limitation, “said shoulder” which lacks proper antecedent basis. It is not clear what shoulder is being referred to as there is no other recitation of shoulder in the claims.
Claims 9 and 20 recite the limitation, “the cartridge’s interior.” This limitation lacks proper antecedent basis, especially as it is not clear whether “the housing’s interior” as recited in claims 1 and 18 is the same interior as “the cartridge’s interior.”
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 12 also recites, “the inlet probe” and “the outlet probe,” both of which lack proper antecedent basis to the claim from which they depend.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected based on their dependence to claim 1.
Claim 13 recites the limitation, “said receiving” on line 10, which lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 15 recites in the preamble that the claim is directed to “an empty cartridge” however on line 7, the claim recites that the cartridge “contains dry beverage medium.” In view of this, the claim is not clear as to how the cartridge can be construed to be an empty cartridge if it contains dry beverage medium. Claim 16 is rejected based on its dependence to claim 15.
Claim 17 recites, “the perforated dividing unit” and “the cup-shaped housing” both of which lack proper antecedent basis.
Claim 19 recites the limitation, “the support feature” which lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a feature configured to tightly engage with a counterpart form-fitting feature” in claim 9 and 20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. See for example, page 6, lines 14-20 and page 29, lines 19-21.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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, 12, 15 and 16 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 the other 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”), dividing the housing’s interior into a first chamber (figure 2, between item 3 and 7) and second chamber (see figure 2, and the chamber between the rigid filter 7 and the bottom wall 9 including the spacing as shown in figure 3 that is covered by the perforated dividing wall element), the first chamber is defined between said one end and said wall element and contains dry beverage medium (see paragraph 22 and 23), and the second chamber is defined between said wall element and said end wall, as discussed directly above; and 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 first and second cup-shaped members connected to one another (see figure 2, item 2 and 80 that are connected to each other); said first cup-shaped member comprises an opening at one end thereof (figure 2, near item 3), a perforated wall at an opposite end (see figure 2, item 7) and first side wall extending therebetween (figure 2, item 2); said second cup-shaped member having an opening at one end and a bottom wall at an opposite end (see figure 4 which shows an open end and a bottom wall) and a second side wall therebetween (figure 4, item 80); and wherein the two members being combined such that (i) the opening of the first member constitutes said opening of the cartridge (see figure 2 and 3, near item 3), (ii) the perforated wall constitutes the perforated wall element of the cartridge (see figure 2, item 7), (iii) the bottom wall of the second member constitutes said end wall of the cartridge (see figure 2, item 9 extending to second side wall 82), and (iv) the first side wall and the second side wall jointly defining said side wall of the cartridge (see figure 2, connected at 41 and 82).
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 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 contains dry beverage medium. In view of this, and since the body of the claim clearly recites that there is a dry beverage medium, claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons as given above with respect to claims 1 and 2.
Regarding claims 3, 5 and 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 “tightly” joining the two portions to one another (see paragraph 35, “mechanical interference”).
Regarding claim 7, Bolzicco discloses that the perforated wall element is formed by a perforated insertable element that is configured to be received within the housing’s interior to divide it into said 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). Claim 7 recites that the perforated insertable element is ”configured to be received within the housing’s interior.” Claim 1 recites that the housing already includes a rigid perforated dividing wall element. In view of this, claim 7 has been construed to mean that the perforated wall element is formed by a perforated element that is insertable into the housing.
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 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 inlet probe for extracting a volume of beverage through an outlet probe 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 6 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bolzicco (US 20160101929) as applied to claim 1 and 15, and in further view of Bugajew (WO 2020089292) and GVB (EP 2030914).
Claims 6 and 17 differ from Bolzicco in specifically reciting that the 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 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) in view of Zangerle (US 20100307930) and Erickson (US 5243164). The definition of “fold” has been relied on as evidence.
Regarding claim 8, it is noted that the claim is unclear in light of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112b.
Further 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 said shoulder” has been construed to mean that there is a bend that is pointing to the interior of the capsule and in this regard, both item 41 and 82 each define a shoulder with a bend that is pointing to the interior of the capsule. 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.”
If it could have been construed that Bolzicco did not specifically teach one of the first or second connecting ends having an inward-directed fold that defines a shoulder, then Zangerle teaches another known way to connect a first cup shaped chamber with a second chamber positioned there-below is to use an inward fold at a first connecting end of a first cup shaped chamber (see figure 5 and 8, item 3 and 8 and paragraph 19, which teaches the lower cup shaped chamber is welded to the inward fold of the first cup shaped member. Erickson also teaches a cartridge for producing a beverage, where a first and second cup-shaped member (see figure 11) have a respective first and second connecting end (see near item 72, 80, 82 and 28) and a filter that divides a housing into the first and second cup shaped chambers (see figure 1, item 44) and where the second connecting end has an inward directed fold that defines a shoulder.
To therefore modify Bolzicco who already teaches first and second connecting ends and to provide a first or second connecting end that has an inward-directed fold that defines a shoulder would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, based on another known expedient by which a second cup-shaped member can be affixed to a first cup shaped member to produce a beverage producing cartridge.
Claims 9 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bolzicco (US 20160101929) as applied to claim 7 and 18, and in further view of Parve (US 20200180856) and Dran (US 20120201933)
Claims 9 and 20 differ from Bolzicco in specifically reciting that “said perforated insertable element comprises a feature that is configured to tightly engage with a counterpart form-fitting feature in the cartridge’s interior” to secure it in position within the cartridge.
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). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that a snap-fit would have resulted in a tight engagement of the perforated dividing wall element with a counterpart form-fitting feature, especially as Applicant’s specification on page 6, lines 14-18 discloses snap engagement as a means for securing the perforated wall in position. Dran also teaches snap-fitting a filter into position (see figure 6, item 24 and paragraph 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 to have used a snap fit connection 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) in view of Stefanoni (US 20180134485).
Claim 11 differs from Bolzicco 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 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, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bolzicco (US 20160101929).
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.
In view of this, and further regarding claim 13, it is 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.
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 has been relied on as already discussed above under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 regarding claim 1, and these teachings have been incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 18, Bolzicco discloses that the perforated wall element is formed by a perforated insertable element that is configured to be received within the housing’s interior to divide it 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). Claim 18 recites that the perforated insertable element is ”configured to be received within the housing’s interior.” Claim 13 recites that the housing already includes a rigid perforated dividing wall element. In view of this, claim 18 has been construed to mean that the perforated wall element is formed by a perforated element that is insertable into the housing.
Regarding claim 19, it is initially noted that the claim is unclear in light of the rejections as presented under 35 U.S.C. 112b.
Further regarding claim 19, as shown in figure 2, Bolzicco discloses the housing comprises first and second cup-shaped members connected to one another at respective first and second connecting ends (see figure 2, item 41 and 82 and paragraph 35) and one of the connecting ends has an inwardly projecting radial lip (see figure 2, to the left and right of item 6 as well as the inwardly projecting circumferential section outside of item 41) that defines “a support feature” (i.e. provide some type of support). It is noted that item 82 as shown in figure 6 can also be construed as an inwardly projecting radial lip that defines a support feature.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bolzicco (US 20160101929) 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 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 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 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20150099046 discloses a cartridge for producing a beverage comprising, two cup-shaped chambers that are jointly attached to each other at connecting ends (see figure 4A) and where a first chamber includes a perforated dividing wall element (Figure 4A, item 15; paragraph 34) that devices a beverage cartridge into a first (Figure 4A, item 10b) and second chamber ( figure 4B, item 9). The reference also discloses, friction, interference or press fitting to secure the two cup-shaped chambers together (see paragraph 30, 31, 33 and 35).
US 20190002192 also discloses a cartridge for preparing a beverage that comprises two cup-shaped members jointly attached to each other and divided by a perforated wall element (see figure 4 and 6).
US 8656827 discloses a cartridge for preparing a beverage that comprises two cup-shaped members jointly attached to each other and divided by a perforated wall element (see figure 2, item 2a, 3 and 2b).
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