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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Paragraph 1 of Applicant’s specification refers to this application being “related” to another application, without providing an Application number for said another application.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “110” has been used to designate both the lid as shown in figures 1-4 and also appears to point to a bottom portion of the beverage pod, as shown in figure 5.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the claim 22 limitation of, “the sidewall…comprises a mesh material, the mesh material allowing bidirectional air flow, the bidirectional air flow allowing air flow into the cavity and out of the cavity” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 16, 23 and 24 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the limitation, “the segmented opening mechanism in a closed state and actuatable to an open state.” (see lines 18-19). Claim 23, lines 16-17 and claim 24, lines 11-12 recite this same limitation. For matters of form, this limitation should be amended to recite, “the segmented opening mechanism is a closed state and is actuatable to an open state.”
Claim 1 recites the limitation, “the foldable segmented lid comprising a segmented opening mechanism for segmentally opening the foldable segmented lid including at least one of the first side segment and the second side segment from the sidewall.” (see lines 16-18). Claim 23, lines 14-16 recites this same limitation. For matters of form, it is suggested to amend this limitation to recite, “the foldable segmented lid comprising a segmented opening mechanism for segmentally opening the foldable segmented lid from the sidewall, the segmented opening mechanism including at least one of the first side segment and the second side segment.”
Claim 1, line 26, claim 23, line 23 and claim 24, line 19 recite, “the open state to decouple.” For matters of form, it appears that this limitation should recite, “the open state decouples” or, “the open state results in decoupling of” or similar language.
Claim 16 recites, “the packaging date and time changing behavior of a brewing machine” on lines 3-4. For matters of form, this limitation should be amended to recite, “the packaging date and time changing a behavior of a brewing machine.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a segmented opening mechanism” in claims 1, 23 and 24.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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: “actuation mechanism” in claim 2-6, which has been disclosed at paragraph 88 to be various means such as a mechanical lever, a spring-loaded mechanism or even an electronic actuator used by a brewing machine, as well as a structure operated by the user or integrated with an automated beverage machine.
At paragraph 46, Applicant’s specification as filed refers to “actuation” as peeling of the foldable segmented lid by a user. At paragraph 51, the specification as filed refers to a brewing machine as providing the actuation and force to the lid.
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.
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 § 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 1-24 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 recites the limitation, “the segmented opening mechanism comprising at a first crease and a second crease of the foldable segmented lid” on lines 19-21. This limitation is not clear as to what the segmented opening mechanism comprises at a first crease and a second crease of the foldable segmented lid. From Applicant’s disclosure, it appears that the segmented opening mechanism comprises a first crease and a second crease of the foldable segmented lid.
Claim 1 recites the limitation, “such that the foldable segmented lid breaks along at one of the first crease and the second crease (see lines 21-22). Claim 23, lines 18-19 and Claim 24, lines 14-15 recite, “such that the foldable segmented lid breaks along the at least one crease.” Claims 2 and 6 recite the limitation, “that breaks the segmented opening mechanism.” These limitation are not clear as to what “the foldable segmented lid breaks along at least one of the first crease and the second crease” is intending to mean. That is, Applicant’s disclosure such as figure 4 shows a first and second crease (116a and 116b), but the specification does not provide clear guidance as to what it means for the lid to “break” along the crease, as figures 10-14 show the lid still intact even after being actuated into an open state.
Claims 2-22 are rejected based on their dependence to claim 1.
Claim 23 recites the limitation, “the segmented opening mechanism in a closed state and actuatable to an open state.” (see lines 16-17). On line 22, claim 23 recites that “the cavity is sealed.” However, the body of the claim does not recite that there is any food ingredient or brewing ingredient within the pod. Therefore, it is not clear whether the claim intends for the “beverage pod for whole brewing elements” (as recited in the preamble) to be a sealed empty container or whether the claim intends to recite brewable ingredients in the body of the claim. Clarification 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.
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 1-3, 5-15, 18, 22, 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boggavarapu (US 20180000108) in view of Trombetta (US 20140161936) and in further view of Cheong (US 20120152952), Kagawa (JP 2006089132) and Eaton (US 4946038). The definition of “break” has been relied on as evidence.
Regarding claims 1, 14, 15, 23 and 24, Boggavarapu discloses a beverage pod “for” (i.e. capable of) whole brewing elements comprising:
a lower surface of a volumetric container (see figure 11 and figure 49, item 3102 and paragraph 191, item 3102 which is a beverage pod);
a sidewall coupling the lower surface to a lid such that the lower surface, the lid, and the sidewall form a cavity of the volumetric container (see figure 11, where wall 530 couples the lower surface to the lid 532);
Boggavarapu also teaches a brewable substance within the cavity such as whole coffee beans (paragraph 120) or tea (see paragraph 190, last 3 sentences), as recited in claims 14 and 15.
Boggavarapu discloses a lid comprising segments that can be construed as being capable of being folded to some degree, because the reference discloses that the lid 532 as shown in figure 11 can be punctured or removed (see paragraph 121) and therefore would have had “segments” that would have been capable of being folded in some manner. This is further supported by paragraph 154 and 173 teaching that the lid can be manually removed by the user or by an integrated beverage system and can be punctured, torn, peeled or otherwise opened or accessed.
Regarding the foldable segmented lid being one-hundred-and-eighty degrees rotationally symmetric and the plurality of foldable segments comprising: a middle segment; and a first side segment and a second side segment, the first side segment being one-hundred-and-eighty degrees rotationally symmetric to the second side segment and the second side segment being one-hundred-and-eighty degrees rotationally symmetric to the first side segment, it is noted that as shown in figure 11, Boggavarapu teaches a circular lid and therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that there would have been a first and second segment (i.e. region) and a middle segment (i.e. region) between the first and second segment and where a first and second segment would therefore have been one-hundred-eighty degrees rotationally symmetric with each other.
Since Boggavarapu discloses a sealed container and where the lid is designed to be removed, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the reference teaches that the beverage pod is in a closed state where the first, middle and second side segments are all coupled with the sidewall so as to seal the brewable substance.
Since Boggavarapu discloses that the lid is to be removed (see paragraph 121), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the beverage pod would have been capable of an open state that decouples at least one of the first side segment, and the second side segment from the sidewall.
Claims 1, 23 and 24 differ from Boggavarapu in specifically reciting that the lid is foldable and “the foldable segmented lid comprising a segmented opening mechanism for segmentally opening the foldable segmented lid including at least one of the first side segment and the second side segment from the sidewall, the segmented opening mechanism in a closed state and actuatable to an open state, the segmented opening mechanism comprising at a first crease and a second crease of the foldable segmented lid such that the foldable segmented lid breaks along at one of the first crease and the second crease when actuated between the closed state and the open state” and
that “the open state to decouple at least one of the first side segment and the second side segment from the sidewall using at least one of the first crease and the second crease when actuated such that the brewable substance exits the beverage pod.”
It is initially noted that the structure of “a segmented opening mechanism” is that the mechanism comprises “a first crease” and “a second crease” or “at least one crease” as recited in claims 23 and 24; and where these creases “would allow” breaking of the lid along these creases “when” the segmented opening mechanism is actuated between the closed state and the open state. That is, the claim is directed to the beverage pod and not the method of using the beverage pod. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the structure of the segmented opening mechanism, the prior art would have been capable of the recited intended use.
In this regard, it is noted that Boggavarapu does not provide any specificity as to how the lid would have been peeled or removed from the volumetric container.
Trombetta teaches that a known way to remove a sealing lid from a beverage pod is to provide a 180° rotationally symmetric lid that is clearly foldable (see figure 8, item 18 and 30b).
While Trombetta does not specifically teach a first and second crease, Cheong teaches a peelable lid for a food container (figure 3, item 40 and 50 which together is a peelable lid; see also paragraph 1 and 26), where the peelable lid has creases (see figure 3, item 51 and figure 5 which shows how the creases can provide an impression into the food) and which creases extend horizontally to define a first side segment, a second side segment and a middle segment there-between (see figure 5) and where the first and second creases make it easier to bend and therefore smoothly open the peelable lid from the container (see paragraph 17 and 34).
It is additionally noted that Kagawa teaches a foldable segmented lid (see figure 10), which has a first side segment (see figure 10, item 21) that is 180 degree rotationally symmetrical to a second side segment (figure 10, item 21’) and where there is a first crease (figure 10, item 26) and a second crease (figure 10, item 26’) which creases allow for easy bending of the tab portions 21, 21’ for making it easier to remove the lid (see paragraph 37 and 55 of the machine translation).
Eaton also teaches that creases in opposing sections of a peelable lid are desirable for allowing for the lid to be readily flexed to make it easier to remove the lid (see column 4, lines 10-24).
To therefore modify Boggavarapu and to maintain the lid as rotationally symmetrical about 180 degrees, while also having a middle segment and a first side and second side segment along with a first and second crease would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, for the purpose of making it easier for the lid to fold and bend and therefore making it easier to separate the lid from the container for access to the contents.
Regarding the limitation of, “such that the foldable segmented lid breaks along [ ] one of the first crease and the second crease when actuated” this is seen to be an intended use that the prior art would have been capable of, dependent on factors such as how one would have physically manipulated the segmented lid for opening thereof. Additionally, This limitation is also unclear in view of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112b. Since Eaton teaches that the creases are cuts, the limitation of “breaks along one of the first crease and the second crease” can be construed as meaning that when bending of the lid, the cuts of Eaton open and therefore cause a disruption to the lid along the crease or change the uniformity of the lid (see the enclosed definition: “to disrupt the order of” on page 2 and “to change the appearance of uniformity of” on page 3). In view of the lack of clarity, the limitation can also be construed to mean that the seal between the lid and the lower surface breaks along the crease “when” actuated such that the prior art would also have been capable of breaking a seal between the lid and the lower surface “when” actuated.
Regarding claims 2 and 6, it is initially noted that the claim is directed to an intended use of the claimed beverage pod. That is, “an actuation mechanism that, when actuated applies a force that breaks the segmented opening mechanism at the first crease (and the second crease as recited in claim 6), such that the segmented opening mechanism changes from the closed state to the open state with the foldable segmented lid remaining at least partially attached to the sidewall in the open state,” is not claimed or directed to a structure that is part of the beverage pod. Rather, as indicated at paragraph 46, Applicant’s specification as filed refers to “actuation” as peeling of the foldable segmented lid by a user. At paragraph 51, the specification as filed refers to a brewing machine as providing the actuation and force to the lid. Paragraph 88 refers to a mechanical lever, a spring-loaded mechanism or an electronic actuator actuated by a brewing means as an actuation mechanism, as well as a structure integrated with an automated brewing system. In light of the disclosure, a user can be construed as an actuation mechanism that can apply a force that is capable of breaking the segmented opening, especially as the limitation is still seen to be an intended use limitation which the prior art would have been capable of performing commensurate with the particular actuation mechanism that was used, as well as how said actuation mechanism was used and how the lid was manipulated for opening thereof. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the peeling of Boggavarapu’s lid in view of Trombetta, Cheong, Kagawa and Eaton would have resulted in applying of a force that would have been capable of breaking the segmented opening mechanism at the second crease. The limitation is also unclear in light of the rejections as presented above under 35 U.S.C. 112b.
Regarding the claim 2 and 6 limitation of lid remaining at least partially attached, this would have been a function of how far the lid was desired to be peeled and in this regard, since the claim is directed to the product and not a method of using the product, Boggavarapu’s lid as modified by the secondary teachings would also have been capable of remaining partially attached to the sidewall.
Regarding claim 3, Boggavarapu teaches that there is a sidewall lip to which the foldable segmented lid is coupled to, such that the brewable substance contained within the cavity is sealed (see figure 11). Trombetta further teaches a sidewall lip as shown in figure 8, item 28, to which a foldable lid is coupled to seal the brewable substance within the cavity.
Regarding claims 5 and 7, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the peeling of Boggavarapu’s lid in view of Trombetta, Cheong, Kagawa and Eaton would have resulted in the crease absorbing some degree of force. Regarding remaining partially attached, this would have been a function of how far the lid was desired to be peeled and in this regard, since the claim is directed to the product and not a method of using the product, Boggavarapu’s lid as modified by the secondary teachings would also have been capable of remaining partially attached to the sidewall.
Regarding claim 8, in light of Cheong, Kagawa and Eaton, the combination teaches that the first crease and the second crease comprise bending points of the foldable segmented lid.
Regarding claim 9-11, in view of Cheong and Kagawa, the combination is teaching that the first crease and the second crease are aligned with structures used to help open the lid. In view of Trombetta also teaching tabs to help peel the lid, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the first crease and second crease as taught by Cheong and Kagawa would have been between the first side segment and the middle segment and the second side segment and the middle segment.
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Boggavarapu teaches that the pod can be made of compostable materials (see paragraph 102: “The compostable or recyclable pod”) and paper (see paragraph 145 - “parchment paper”).
Regarding claim 18, Boggavarapu teaches a validation marking (see figure 11, item 510 and paragraph 121 and figure 13A, item 1110) which can be read by an integrated beverage system (see paragraph 141 “The container 1100 can include a validation marking 1110 that can be ready by an integrated beverage system.”). Boggavarapu also teaches that the pod can include a code, bar code or other data that can be read by a scanner (paragraph 104). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that Boggavarapu therefore teaches and suggests a machine-readable indicator on the foldable lid. Boggavarapu further teaches that the machine-readable indicator can be obfuscated so as to be invisible to the naked eye and preserve the aesthetic appeal of the pod (see paragraph 104: “The information, code, data, or the like can be printed on the package in any form, such as a form invisible to the naked eye….”)
Regarding claim 22, Boggavarapu teaches at paragraph 191 that the beverage pod can comprises a lid that is capable of being removed and where the coffee beans within the pod can be roasted in the pod. Boggavarapu further teaches that the pod can comprise a sidewall through which forced heated air can be provided to cause the beans within the container to travel vertically and radially outward and then back down toward the bottom of the pod for even roasting (see paragraph 141). Because air is allowed to enter through the indents 1308 and where the coffee beans are still retained within the bod, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, that these indents can be construed as a mesh material that is coupling the lower surface of the pod to a foldable lid (1304).
Claims 4 and 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination as applied to claims 1 and 3 above, which relies on Boggavarapu as the primary reference, and in further view of Reiterer (US 20110056949).
Regarding claim 4, the combination teaches pull tabs as part of the foldable segmented lid, such as taught by Trombetta and Kagawa.
Claim 4 differs in specifically reciting, wherein the sidewall lip comprises a first notch and a second notch; wherein the segmented opening mechanism for segmentally opening the foldable segmented lid uses at least one of the first notch and the second notch for initiating the actuation mechanism that, when actuated, applies the force.
Reiterer teaches that another way of providing a grasping tab to a container sealed with a flexible lid is to provide a depression (i.e. notch) to allow for grasping of the lid (see figure 7 and 8 and paragraph 18) instead of a protruding tab (see figures 10 and 11, item 11a (see paragraph 11). To therefore modify the combination which teaches opposing tabs, and to instead use notches within the sidewall lip, as taught by Reiterer, would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, as an obvious substitution of one expedient for another, both recognized for allowing for the gripping of a foldable lid to facilitate separating of the lid from the container for accessing the contents.
Regarding claim 21, Figure 11, 14, 21 and 22 of Bogtgavarapu teach that the lid and the lower surface are both circular and in view of Reiterer figure 1, further teach and suggest a circular lid while also comprising a means for peeling the lid (see figure 1,7 and 8)
Claims 16, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination, as applied to claim 1 above, which relies on Boggavarapu (US 20180000108) as the primary reference, and in further view of Eller (US 20180317695), Empl (US 20160242594) and Trivelli (US 20240246750).
Regarding claim 16, Boggavarapu teaches a validation marking (see figure 11, item 510 and paragraph 121 and figure 13A, item 1110) which can be read by an integrated beverage system (see paragraph 141 “The container 1100 can include a validation marking 1110 that can be ready by an integrated beverage system.”). Boggavarapu also teaches that the pod can include a code, bar code or other data that can be read by a scanner (paragraph 104). It would have been obvious to one having oirndary skill in the art that Boggavarapu therefore teacher and suggests a machine-readable indicator on the foldable lid.
Claim 16 differs in specifically reciting that the machine-readable indicator that identifies the brewable substance in the beverage pod, a packaging date and time of the brewable substance, the packaging date and time changing behavior of a brewing machine relative to the brewable substance.
Eller teaches that it has been conventional to provide various forms of information via machine readable code, as part of a beverage pod (see paragraph 26), including the substance type and brewing parameters associated with the type of substance and the age of the pod, which can be construed as encompassing a packaging date and time of the brewable substance (see paragraph 27). Eller also teaches that any other desirable information can be provided as part of the machine-readable indicator (paragraph 27). Empl further teaches that the machine readable code can include a use-by date for the coffee producing pod (see paragraph 53) such that the machine behavior can be altered if the portion capsule has one past its minimum use-by date (see paragraph 29 and 65). Trivelli further teaches that it has been conventional to include information such as data relating to the date of production and filling of the capsule with the substance as part of the identification code (see paragraph 159).
To therefore modify Boggavarapu and to include information such as the type of brewable substance and the packaging date and time would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art for the purpose of allowing Boggavarapu’s beverage producing machine to identify the particular type of beverage to be made as well as to prevent using a beverage pod that is past its expiration date.
Regarding claim 19, Boggavarapu teaches that the machine readable indicator can be a barcode or QR code (see paragraph 101, 2nd to last sentence; see paragraph 155: “An information code (Bar code, QR Code, …”).
Regarding claim 20, Boggavarapu teaches that the code can include “bean information thus relating to the type of brewable substance as well as optimum preparation recipe instructions (see paragraph 104). Eller teaches that the machine readable indicator can describe a type of the brewable substance (see paragraph 27, “type of elements contained in the pod”) as well as brewing instructions.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination as applied to claim 1 above, which relies on Boggavarapu (US 20180000108) as the primary reference, and in further view of Aschwanden (US 20170341856) and Kang (KR 20190088370).
Regarding claim 17, Boggavarapu teaches a validation marking (see figure 11, item 510 and paragraph 121 and figure 13A, item 1110) which can be read by an integrated beverage system (see paragraph 141 “The container 1100 can include a validation marking 1110 that can be ready by an integrated beverage system.”). Boggavarapu also teaches that the pod can include a code, bar code or other data that can be read by a scanner (paragraph 104). It would have been obvious to one having oirndary skill in the art that Boggavarapu therefore teacher and suggests a machine-readable indicator on the foldable lid.
Claim 17 differs in specifically reciting that the foldable segmented lid comprises a machine-readable indicator that identifies a weight of the brewable substance, the weight changing a behavior of a brewing machine relative to the brewable substance.
Aschwanden teaches beverage pods that can include machine readable code, such as a brewing temperature, a brewing pressure, a brewing time as well as a brewing quantity or water quantity (see paragraph 32) where a brewing quantity can be construed to mean a quantity of brewing material, similar to how a water quantity would mean an amount of water. Kang further teaches that coffee bean weight can play a role in determining the type of beverage to be prepared (see paragraph 9 and 27 of the machine translation). That is, at paragraph 27, Kang teaches that the weight of coffee beans used may be determined different based on whether an Americano or an espresso are made. Kang teaches that this information can be associated with machine readable code (see paragraph 53 of the machine translation).
To therefore modify the combination and to further include the brewing quantity or amount of brewing material would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art for the purpose of tailoring the prepared beverage produced from the beverage pod.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination, as applied to claim 1 above, which relies on Boggavarapu (US 20180000108) as the primary reference, and in further view of Kihnke (US 20150110928).
Regarding claim 22, if it could have been construed that Boggavarapu’s teachings did not teach or suggest the sidewall coupling the lower surface to the foldable segmented lid comprises a mesh material, then it is noted that Kihnki teaches a sidewall that couples a lid to a lower surface of a beverage pod (see figure 1, item 14 which is a sidewall, that couples bottom wall 12 to the lid 16; paragraph 28). Kihnki further teaches that the sidewall can comprise a mesh filter material (figure 3, item 24 and paragraph 33) and where during use to produce a coffee beverage, the sidewall would have provided a mesh material that would have allowed for bidirectional air flow into and out of the cavity, while containing the coffee material within the pod (see paragraph 33 and figure 2).
Since Boggavarapu also prepares a coffee beverage via the beverage pod (see figure 48 and 49), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have provided Boggavarapu’s sidewall with mesh material in order to allow for containing of the coffee material when producing the beverage therefrom.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Apone (US 20160145038) discloses a beverage pod comprising whole coffee beans (see figure 2A) and where a sealing lid 213 is desirably removed from the pod (see paragraph 23).
Xu (US 20230284820) discloses a sealed beverage pod comprising whole coffee beans (see figure 4, item 408 and paragraph 58) and which pod comprises a removable lid thereon (see figure 4, item 410 and paragraph 58; see also figure 10D, 11A, 12 and 13).
Zumsteg (CH 655480) discloses bends in a lid which is therefore foldable (see figure 2 and 3, item 22, 23 and figure 5) for facilitating removing of the lid.
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