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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of claims 1-15 in the reply filed on 5/12/26 is acknowledged. Claims 16-22 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/12/26.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Von Hasseln (US 2018/0160720) in view of applicant’s recitation of well known art in the disclosure.
For claim 1, Von Hasseln teaches a method of manufacturing a three-dimensional food product, the method comprising: loading successive layers of a beverage material onto a print bed of a three-dimensional (3D) printer; and applying binder to each of the successive layers of the beverage material in a predetermined pattern to bond the beverage material in the predetermined pattern, and the binder bonding the successive layers in the predetermined pattern, wherein the predetermined pattern corresponds to a sequential cross-sectional layer of an object model for a three-dimensional food product where the object model describes sequential cross-sectional layers of the three-dimensional food product designed based on a plurality of different attributes ([0022], Examiner notes that a beverage material is an edible food product).
Von Hasseln does not teach manufacturing a beverage pod.
However, Applicant states that the following is well known in the art: pods composed of beverage ingredients can be used for forming a beverage, and the form and function of pods may vary from single-serve cartridges, capsules, tablets, encapsulated balls or other packages containing or made from a portion of coffee or other beverage precursor base that is compatible with a coffee-making or other beverage-making appliance (pg 1 lns 13-16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of applicant’s recitation of well known art in the disclosure with those of Von Hasseln by manufacturing a beverage pod in order to produce a three-dimensional food product having great flexibility of use.
For claims 2-3, Von Hasseln teaches the beverage material is ground coffee and the plurality of different brewing attributes includes beverage material grind size ([0112]).
For claim 4, Von Hasseln teaches loading a layer of beverage material comprises loading beverage material of a first grind size or a second grind size as determined by the brewing attributes of the beverage pod ([0079], [0085]).
For claims 5-10, further regarding manufacturing a beverage pod taught as obvious by applicant’s recitation of well known art in the disclosure above, applicant’s recitation of well known art in the disclosure also teaches in some arrangements, such beverage pods are mixed directly with hot water to form a beverage, in some arrangements, the pods may be designed with a containment layer to be pierced during the brewing process, and in some arrangements, water is permitted to percolate through beverage pods to form a beverage (pg 1 lns 17-20) and as such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the object model include filters, solid pattern, enclosure, and loose beverage material contained within the enclosure; the geometry of the object model include a pod having a containment layer of bound beverage material surrounding loose beverage material; the geometry of the object model further include a plurality of openings in the containment layer that allows a liquid to filter through the plurality of openings during brewing; the containment layer have a thickness that enables deformation of the pod during brewing; the containment layer have a thickness that maintains rigidity of the pod during brewing; and the geometry of the object model include a pod of solid bound beverage material since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to perform routine experimentation for the purpose of optimizing the beverage pod structure for desired performance characteristics. Please see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 for further details.
For claim 11, it is well known to provide break points in LM (layer manufactured) articles and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the geometry of the object model further include fault points to facilitate breakage of the beverage pod during brewing.
For claims 12-15, Von Hasseln teaches the binder is a biodegradable liquid binder; the binder is a curable binder and wherein forming at least one beverage pod further comprises curing the binder with an energy source after applying the binder; the curable binder is a photocurable binder; and the energy source is an ultraviolet light source ([0062], [0073]-[0076], [0130]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES SANDERS whose telephone number is (571)270-7007. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 11-7.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Galen Hauth can be reached on 571-270-5516. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAMES SANDERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743
