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 under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the claim 13 limitation of, “one or more inwardly extending protrusions located adjacent the stepped region, the punctured support plate being fixed between the one or more inwardly extending protrusions and the stepped region” 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
On page 12, lines 15-17, the stepped region is notated with the reference character “16c” and “14c”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 20 recites, “the first stepped region being located at a distance from said base which is larger than or equal to a piercing height of the draining member and being configured to support a punctured support plate which devices the interior volume into a first compartment delimited in part by the lid which is configured to hold one or more beverage ingredients and a second compartment delimited in part by the base,” (see lines 17-22). For matters of form, this limitation should be amended to recite,
“the first stepped region being located at a distance from said base, said distance is larger than or equal to a piercing height of the draining member and said first stepped region being configured to support a punctured support plate that divides the interior volume into a first compartment that is delimited in part by the lid, said first compartment is configured to hold one or more beverage ingredients, and a second compartment delimited in part by the base,”
Claim 20 recites, “which filter bag is configured” on line 24. For matters of form, this limitation should be amended to recite, “the filter bag is configured.”
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.
Claim 17-20 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 17 recites the limitation, “near” on line 2. Claim 20 also recites the limitation, “near” on lines 15 and 16. This limitation is a relative term that has not been defined by the claims or specification, thus making the scope of what can be construed as “near” unclear.
Claim 17 recites that “the sidewall comprises a second stepped region” on line 2. Neither claim 17 nor claim 1 from which claim 17 depends refers to a first stepped region, thus making the claim unclear as to whether the rection of “a second stepped region” is intending to mean that there is also a first stepped region.
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected based on their dependence to a rejected claim.
Claim 18 recites, “the filter bag” on line 3 and claim 19 recites, “the filter bag” on line 1. It is not clear whether this recitation is intending to have antecedent basis to “a filter bag” on line 2 of claim 18 or, “a filter bag” as recited in claim 17.
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.
Claim 1-3, 9, 11, 12, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Mizzon (IT 202100011192).
Regarding Mizzon (IT 202100011192) a machine translation has been relied on and is included with this Office Action.
Regarding claim 1, Mizzon teaches a beverage capsule for (i.e. capable of) use in a beverage preparation machine to prepare a beverage by passing a fluid through the beverage capsule, the beverage capsule comprising:
a cup-shaped body comprising a base (see figure 1 item 3) and a sidewall (figure 1, item 7) contiguous with the base.
Regarding the limitation of, “wherein the base is configured to be pierced by a draining member of the beverage preparation machine to allow draining a beverage from the beverage capsule,” this is an intended use limitation that Mizzon’s capsule would have been capable of performing. Nonetheless, on page 2 of the translation, Mizzon teaches that the base is pierceable (see page 2, lines 8-10: “During a processing cycle the lid and the bottom of the container are pierced…”).
Mizzon teaches a lid sealed to the cup-shaped body (figure 1, item 8, page 3, line 5), the lid and cup-shaped body enclosing an interior volume (see figure 2, item 2a, 2b).
Regarding the limitation of, “wherein the lid is configured to be pierced by an injection member of the beverage preparation machine to inject a fluid into the beverage capsule,” this is an intended use limitation that Mizzon’s capsule would have been capable of performing. Nonetheless, on page 2, lines 8-10 of the translation, Mizzon teaches that the lid is pierceable (“During a processing cycle the lid and the bottom of the container are pierced…”).
Mizzon teaches a punctured support plate positioned inside the cup-shaped body (see figure 1, item 4 and 5 and page 3 of the translation, line 3 and lines 11-13 which discloses item 4 is a filter with holes, and therefore is a “punctured support plate”). In light of Applicant’s specification, a punctured support plate is a plate with holes. Mizzon teaches that the punctured support plate is dividing the interior volume into a first compartment delimited in part by the lid (see figure 1 and 2, item 2a) and configured for (i.e. capable of) holding one or more beverage ingredients and a second compartment delimited in part by the base (see figure 1 and 2, item 2b).
Regarding the limitation of, “wherein the punctured support plate is located at a distance from said base which is larger than or equal to a piercing height of the draining member of the beverage preparation machine” this is an intended use limitation that the capsule of Mizzon would have been capable of performing. That is, the claim is directed to the capsule and not the method of using the capsule. As such, since Mizzon teaches the structure of a punctured plate that is distanced away from the pierceable base and since Mizzon’s capsule is pierceable by a needle, Mizzon’s capsule would have been capable of the recited intended use.
Regarding the limitation of, “wherein said beverage is able to pass through the punctured support plate, wherein the cup-shaped body, the lid and the punctured support plate are made of a material comprising metal,” Mizzon teaches that the purpose of the punctured support plate is to allow beverage to pass there-through (see page 2, lines 9-10: “The drink produced by infusion passes through the filter into the second chamber from which it subsequently exits via the exit needle.” See also page 3, lines 14-16); and Mizzon also teaches that the cup-shaped body, the lid and the punctured support are made of a material comprising metal (see page 2, last three lines; see page 3, lines 11-13 which discloses that the cup shaped container 2 is made of aluminum, with a filter 4 made of aluminum as well as a lid made of aluminum).
It is also noted that claim 1 does not require any beverage ingredients within the sealed capsule.
Regarding claims 2-3, Mizzon teaches the beverage capsule further comprises the one or more beverage ingredients that are extraction ingredients, such as coffee (see paragraph 6 which discloses that the invention is directed to capsules for beverages such as ground coffee; see page 2, lines 8-10 and page 3, lines 14-16 which discloses infusion (i.e. extraction)).
Regarding claim 9, Mizzon teaches that the cup-shaped body, the lid and the punctured support plate are all made of a same material (see page 3, lines 14-16, aluminum).
Regarding claim 11, Mizzon teaches the sidewall comprises a stepped region, the punctured support plate engaging the stepped region (see figure 1, item 9 and page 3, line 3 and page 3, lines 18-19 which discloses the filter 4 is fixed to the stepped transverse portion)
Regarding claim 12, on page 3, lines 18-19 of the translation, Mizzon discloses that the punctured support plate is welded to the stepped region. It is noted that the claim is directed to a product and not the method of making the product, such that the structure implied by welding is the punctured support plate fixed to the stepped region. Nonetheless, on page 3, lines 18-19, Mizzon discloses that the support plate is heat welded to the stepped region.
Regarding claim 15, all that Mizzon discloses is an aluminum capsule body, an aluminum lid and a filter consisting of a perforated layer of aluminum (see page 3, lines 11-13 and 26-27) and therefore inherently discloses that the beverage capsule does not contain a filter paper.
Regarding claim 16, as shown in figure 1 and 2, Mizzon discloses an annular rim that is contiguous with the sidewall, and to which rim the lid (8) is sealed.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Accursi (US 20150353275).
Regarding claim 20, it is noted that the claim does not require a filter bag or the recited “punctured support plate” because the claim recites that the capsule is “configured to support a punctured support plate” and is “configured to attach a filter bag.” It is also noted that claim 20 does not require any beverage ingredients within the sealed capsule.
Regarding claim 20, Accursi teaches a beverage capsule for use in a beverage preparation machine to prepare a beverage by passing a fluid through the beverage capsule (paragraph 2), the beverage capsule comprising:
a cup-shaped body comprising a base and a sidewall contiguous with the base (see figure 1, item 3 and 4), wherein the base is configured to be pierced by a draining member of the beverage preparation machine to allow draining a beverage from the beverage capsule (see paragraph 41, “the lower wall 3 can also be pierced”); and
a lid sealed to the cup-shaped body (figure 1, item 6), the lid and cup-shaped body enclosing an interior volume, wherein the lid is configured to be pierced by an injection member of the beverage preparation machine to inject a fluid into the beverage capsule (see paragraph 41, “the lid 6 can be pierced”),
wherein the sidewall comprises a first stepped region near the base (see figure 1 and figure 2, item 32) and a second stepped region near the lid (see figure 1 and 10, item 15 and 19; see also paragraph 63, 67-70), the first stepped region being located at a distance from said base (see figure 2, and the distance between 27 and the base 3).
Further regarding the limitation that the stepped region is located at a distance, “which is larger than or equal to a piercing height of the draining member of the beverage preparation machine and being configured to support a punctured support plate which divides the interior volume into a first compartment delimited in part by the lid which is configured to hold one or more beverage ingredients and a second compartment delimited in part by the base,” this is seen to be an intended use of the claimed structure. That is, the claim is directed to a capsule that must only be capable of having a punctured support plate positioned on the first stepped region and since Accursi teaches that the stepped region, as well as a support plate is at a distance from the base 3, the structure of the capsule has been anticipated by Accursi and would have been capable of the intended use of being at a distance that is larger than or equal to a piercing height of the draining member of the beverage preparation machine.
Regarding the limitation of, “the second stepped region being configured to attach a filter bag to the sidewall, which filter bag is configured to hold the one or more beverage ingredients” this too is an intended use that Accursi would have been capable of performing, especially because Accursi teaches a second stepped region that is clearly capable of having a filter coupled thereto (see figure 1, item 15 and figure 10, item 19; see also paragraph 63, 67-70).
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizzon (IT 202100011192) in view Dran (US 20120201933) or Gugerli (AU 2012356914 A1).
Regarding claim 4, while Mizzon teaches ground coffee, claim 4 differs in specifically reciting that the one or more beverage ingredients have a particle size distribution determined using optical microscopy according to ISO 13320:2020, wherein at least 95 volume% of the one or more beverage ingredients have a particle size of at least 40 microns.
Regarding the particular method of determining particle size distribution, it is noted that the claims are directed to a beverage capsule comprising beverage ingredients therein (i.e. an article), and not the method of making the beverage ingredients. In view of this, the structure implied by the claim is that “at least 95 volume% of the one or more beverage ingredients have a particle size of at least 40 microns.”
In this regard, Dran teaches beverage capsules comprising beverage ingredients such as ground coffee (see paragraph 44) and where the volume of ingredients such as ground coffee can have 80-100% of the ingredients with a particle size between 589-833 microns (see paragraph 45). This therefore suggests that at least 95 volume% of the beverage ingredient has a particle size of at least 40 microns, such as 100 volume%. Gugerli also teaches a beverage capsule that can comprise beverage ingredients such as ground coffee (see page 5, lines 4-5; page 16, line 35-36) and where the coffee can have a particle size where at least 95% of the particles have a particle size in the range of 50-700 microns (see page 12, line 37 to page 13, line 5).
To therefore modify Mizzon and to package beverage ingredients where 100% of the ingredients have a particle size of 589-833 microns or at least 95% of the particles being between 50-700 microns would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as an obvious matter of engineering and/or design based on known particle size distributions for ground coffee packaged within a beverage producing capsule.
Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizzon (IT 202100011192) in view of Favre (US 5008013).
Regarding claims 6-8, Mizzon teaches a punctured support plate, as discussed above under 35 U.S.C. 102a1. Regarding claim 7, Mizzon appears to show in figure 1 that all the openings are of the same shape.
Claims 6-8 differ in specifically reciting, wherein the punctured support plate comprises openings having a smallest dimension which is at most 200 microns (claim 6); wherein all of the openings have a same shape (claim 7); wherein the punctured support plate comprises openings which are uniformly distributed across the plate (claim 8).
Favre teaches a filter plate (see figure 1 and 2) used in a beverage capsule (figure 7); the filter plate is made of aluminum (see column 2, lines 14-15); where all the openings are of the same shape (see figure 2) and uniformly distributed (see the abstract, “uniformly distributed openings”) and can have a smallest dimension that is at most 200 microns (see column 1, lines 57-60, where the minor base can be 0.01mm (10 microns) and the major base diameter can be 0.2mm or 200 microns). Favre teaches that such a filter has good weldability and mechanical strength while also improving the quality of the coffee obtained (see column 1, lines 15-28) while also allowing for producing a longer lasting froth, lasting taste and good extractability (see column 2, lines 46-51 and column 3, lines 24-30).
Mizzon does not provide any specificity with respect to the arrangement, shape or size of the openings on Mizzon’s filter plate. To therefore modify Mizzon and to uniformly distribute openings of the same shape, and having a smallest dimension that is 10 microns or 200 microns, as taught by Favre, would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, for the purpose of providing a filter plate that has good weldability, mechanical strength while also improving the quality of the coffee obtained by producing a longer lasting froth, lasting taste and good extractability.
Regarding claim 5, Mizzon teaches a punctured support plate comprising openings.
Claim 5 differs in specifically reciting that the support plate comprises openings having a size so as to prevent 95 volume% of the one or more beverage ingredients from passing therethrough.
It is noted however, that neither claim 5 nor claim 1 from which claim 5 depends positively recites one or more beverage ingredients within the capsule, because claim 1 recites, “…and configured for holding one or more beverage ingredients.” Claim 1 and 5 also do not recite any particular size for the beverage ingredients. Therefore, since Mizzon is teaching that the purpose of the punctured filter plate is to retain the beverage ingredients, Mizzon’s punctured filter plate would have been capable of preventing at least 95 volume% of one or more beverage ingredients from passing, especially because this would also have been a function of the particular beverage ingredient. Nonetheless, it is further noted that Favre teaches an opening diameter of the holes of the filter plate, can be 0.01mm (10 microns) (see column 2, lines 44-45 and column 3, lines 15-16 and figure 2, which altogether show that the dimension of the opening that faces the filter plate is 10 microns), and therefore the combination is teaching and suggesting a filter plate capable of preventing at least 95 volume% of beverage ingredients from passing therethrough.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizzon (IT 202100011192) in view Favre (US 5008013) and in further view of Dran (US 20120201933) or Gugerli (AU 2012356914 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Mizzon teaches a punctured support plate comprising openings.
Claim 5 differs in specifically reciting that the support plate comprises openings having a size so as to prevent 95 volume% of the one or more beverage ingredients from passing therethrough.
It is noted however, that neither claim 5 nor claim 1 from which claim 5 depends positively recites one or more beverage ingredients within the capsule, because claim 1 recites, “…and configured for holding one or more beverage ingredients.” Claim 1 and 5 also do not recite any particular size for the beverage ingredients. Therefore, since Mizzon is teaching that the purpose of the punctured filter plate is to retain the beverage ingredients, Mizzon’s punctured filter plate would have been capable of preventing at least 95 volume% of one or more beverage ingredients from passing, especially because this would also have been a function of the particular beverage ingredient. Nonetheless, it is further noted that Favre teaches an opening diameter of the holes of the filter plate, can be 0.01mm (10 microns) (see column 2, lines 44-45 and column 3, lines 15-16 and figure 2, which altogether show that the dimension of the opening that faces the filter plate is 10 microns), and therefore the combination is teaching and suggesting a filter plate capable of preventing at least 95 volume% of beverage ingredients from passing therethrough.
It is further noted however, that Dran teaches beverage capsules comprising beverage ingredients such as ground coffee (see paragraph 44) and where the volume of ingredients such as ground coffee can have 80-100% of the ingredients with a particle size between 589-833 microns (see paragraph 45). This therefore suggests that at least 95 volume% of the beverage ingredient has a particle size of at least 40 microns, such as 100 volume%. Gugerli also teaches a beverage capsule that can comprise beverage ingredients such as ground coffee (see page 5, lines 4-5; page 16, line 35-36) and where the coffee can have a particle size where at least 95% of the particles have a particle size in the range of 50-700 microns (see page 12, line 37 to page 13, line 5).
To therefore modify the Mizzon/Farve combination and to package beverage ingredients where 100% of the ingredients have a particle size of 589-833 microns or at least 95% of the particles being between 50-700 microns would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as an obvious matter of engineering and/or design based on known particle size distributions for ground coffee packaged within a beverage producing capsule. In view of this modification, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that at least 95 volume % of the coffee having particle sizes as taught by Dran and Gugerli would have been prevented from passing through Favre’s filter.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizzon (IT 202100011192) in view of Footz (US 20210362941) or Black (US 20170210554).
Regarding claim 10, Mizzon teaches that the cup-shaped body, the lid and the punctured support plate are all made of aluminum, as already discussed above. Because Mizzon is teaching that ground coffee is packaged within the capsule, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that Mizzon’s aluminum would have been food-grade metal.
If it could have been construed that this was not the case, Footz teaches known types of aluminum used for beverage capsule materials of construction, including food-grade aluminum (see paragraph 21). Black also teaches known food-safe materials that can be used for beverage producing capsules can include food-safe materials including metals (see paragraph 80). To therefore modify Mizzon if necessary and to use food-grade metals would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to ensure that the capsule can be safely used for contact with foods.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizzon (IT 202100011192) in view of Accursi (US 20150353275) or Faravelli (US 20190300275).
Regarding claim 13, Mizzon teaches a stepped region, but claim 13 differs in specifically reciting, “wherein the sidewall is provided with one or more inwardly extending protrusions located adjacent the stepped region, the punctured support plate being fixed between the one or more inwardly extending protrusions and the stepped region.”
Accursi teaches a beverage capsule comprising a punctured support plate (see figure 3, item 26; the abstract and paragraph 86) and which support plate is fixed between the stepped region (see figure 3, near item 32) and an inward protrusion (see figure 3 and the protrusion above item 28 and paragraph 96, which teaches sealing or mechanical interference fit).
Faravelli also teaches a beverage capsule comprising a punctured support plage (figure 1, item 9, 13 and paragraph 21) and which filter assembly is positioned on a stepped region (see figure 1, item 18). As shown in figure 1, Faravelli teaches an inward protrusion such that the filter assembly is secured between the stepped region 18 and the sidewall 6 engages with a top portion of the filter assembly (see paragraph 27) and which engagement is via an inward protrusion, as shown in figure 1.
To therefore modify Mizzon and to include at least one protrusion such that Mizzon’s punctured support plate is positioned between Mizzon’s stepped region as well as an inward protrusion of the sidewall would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, for the purpose of ensuring that Mizzon’s punctured support plate remained in position.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizzon (IT 202100011192) in view of Husband (US 20140287105), Katz (US 20160016727) and Koller (US 20140272018).
Regarding claim 14, Mizzon teaches that the punctured support plate is distanced from the bottom/base of the beverage capsule (see figure 1).
Claim 14 differs in specifically reciting, wherein said distance between the punctured support plate and the base is at least 5 mm.
Husband teaches a beverage capsule with a stepped region on which a filter plate is secured (see figure 8-9, item 140,144); the filter plate is distanced from the bottom/base of the beverage capsule for the purpose of preventing a piercing needle from piercing the filter plate (see paragraph 59).
Since Mizzon also teaches piercing the base of the capsule, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified Mizzon and to have provided the requisite spacing between Mizzon’s support plate and the bottom of the capsule so as to prevent the needle from inadvertently puncturing or damaging Mizzon’s support plate.
Further regarding the specific distance, it is noted that once the prior art teaches that it has been known to distance a porous support plate from a bottom of a beverage capsule for the art recognized and Applicant’s intended function of avoiding damage to the filtering support plate, it is not seen that the specific distance of at least 5mm would have provided a patentable distinction over the prior art, because where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)). Nonetheless, Mizzon teaches that the distance between the support plate and the lid of the cup-shaped body can be 2/3 of the height of the capsule which therefore teaches that the space between the support plate and the base would have been 1/3 of the height of the capsule (see page 3, lines 24-25). Katz teaches that a known height of a beverage capsule can be 36.5mm (see paragraph 59 and figure 2A). Koller teaches an overall cartridge height of at least about 15mm or at least about 19mm (see paragraph 52). To therefore modify Mizzon and to use known sizes of beverage producing capsules, such as 36.5mm or 15 or 19mm, would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, as a matter of engineering and/or design based on conventional sizes for beverage producing capsules. In view of the total height of 36.5mm and since Mizzon teaches the distance is 1/3 of the height from the support plate to the base of the capsule, the combination is suggesting a support plate at a height of about 12mm (i.e. 1/3 of 36.5mm). In view of Koller, the combination suggests a distance between the support and the base of 5mm or 6.3mm (1/3 of 15mm and 1/3 of 19mm).
Claims 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizzon (IT 202100011192) in view of Accursi (US 20150353275).
Regarding claim 17, the claim differs from Mizzon in specifically reciting, “wherein the sidewall comprises a second stepped region near the lid, the second stepped region being configured to attach a filter bag to the sidewall, which filter bag is configured to hold the one or more beverage ingredients.”
However, Accursi teaches a capsule with a first stepped region for securing a first punctured support plate (see figure 2, item 27, 32 and paragraph 88) and where if desired an additional filtering element (see figure 1, item 9 and at least paragraph 86). Accursi teaches that the filtering element 9 is attached to a second stepped region near the lid (see figure 1, item 15 and figure 10, item 19; see also paragraph 63, 67-70). It is noted that the claim does not positively recite that a filter bag is attached but only that the second stepped region must be capable of attaching a filter bag thereto, and in this regard Accursi teaches a second stepped region which is capable of having a filter bag attached thereto.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified Mizzon as taught by Accursi and provided a second stepped region in Mizzon’s sidewall near the lid, since Accursi teaches that it has been advantageous to include both a filter attached to an upper stepped region together with a filtering plate positioned there-below, for the purpose of providing additional filtering of the produced beverage.
Regarding claim 20, Mizzon has been relied on and incorporated herein, as discussed above with respect to claim 1 to teach:
a beverage capsule for use in a beverage preparation machine to prepare a beverage by passing a fluid through the beverage capsule, the beverage capsule comprising:
a cup-shaped body comprising a base and a sidewall contiguous with the base, wherein the base is configured to be pierced by a draining member of the beverage preparation machine to allow draining a beverage from the beverage capsule; and
a lid sealed to the cup-shaped body, the lid and cup-shaped body enclosing an interior volume, wherein the lid is configured to be pierced by an injection member of the beverage preparation machine to inject a fluid into the beverage capsule.
Mizzon further teaches wherein the sidewall comprises a first stepped region near the base (see figure 1, item 9), and which sidewall is located at a distance from the base. Regarding this distance “being larger than or equal to a piercing height of the draining member of the beverage preparation machine,” this is an intended use that the prior art capsule would have been capable of performing. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Mizzon further teaches the first stepped region is configured to support a punctured support plate (see figure 1, item 4, 5), which divides the interior volume into a first compartment delimited in part by the lid which is configured to hold one or more beverage ingredients (figure 2, item 2a) and a second compartment delimited in part by the base (figure 2, item 2b). It is noted that the claim does not positively recite that the capsule comprises the punctured support plate, but rather, must only be configured to support a punctured support plate.
Claim 20 differs from Mizzon in specifically reciting that the capsule comprises “a second stepped region near the lid,” and “the second stepped region being configured to attach a filter bag to the sidewall, which filter bag is configured to hold the one or more beverage ingredients.”
It is initially noted that the claim does not positively recite the filter bag, but rather, only positively recites a second stepped region.
However, Accursi has been relied on as already discussed above with respect to claim 17, to teach the use of a second stepped region near the lid of the beverage capsule, for the purpose of providing additional filtering in combination with a support plate positioned on a first stepped region.
To therefore modify Mizzon and to include a second stepped region near the lid, as taught by Accursi would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, for the purpose of being able to provide additional filtering to the beverage produced from the beverage ingredients.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizzon (IT 202100011192) in view of Accursi (US 20150353275) and in further view of Crump (US 20120171333), Hansen (US 20150246741) and Putnam (US 20180228314).
Regarding claims 18-19, the combination as applied to claim 17 is incorporated herein.
Claim 18 differs from Mizzon in specifically reciting, “wherein the capsule further comprises a filter bag configured to hold the one or more beverage ingredients, the filter bag being attached to the second stepped region.”
Claim 19 differs from Mizzon in specifically reciting, “wherein the filter bag is welded to the second stepped region.”
However, Accursi teaches a capsule with a first stepped region for securing a first punctured support plate (see figure 2, item 27, 32 and paragraph 88) and where there is an additional filtering element (see figure 1, item 9 and at least paragraph 86). Accursi teaches that the filtering element 9 is attached to a second stepped region near the lid (see figure 1, item 15 and figure 10, item 19; see also paragraph 63, 67-70).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified Mizzon as taught by Accursi and provided a second stepped region in Mizzon’s sidewall near the lid, since Accursi teaches that it has been advantageous to include both a filter attached to an upper stepped region together with a filtering plate positioned there-below, for the purpose of providing additional filtering of the produced beverage.
If it could have been construed that Accursi is not specifically teaching a “filter bag” then it is noted that Crump also teaches a beverage capsule for coffee (paragraph 12), which comprises a perforated support plate (figure 11, item 40, 44; paragraph 34) and above which is a filter bag (figure 11, item 18; see paragraph 12, “the filter bag”) attached to a stepped portion near the lid (figure 11, item 22 and paragraph 12 and 31).
Hansen teaches a beverage capsule comprising a first stepped region (see figure 3, and the sidewall near the bottom 4) as well as a second stepped region near the lid (see figure 1, item 22) and where the second stepped region is used for attaching a “filter bag” to the capsule by welding (see figure 3-4, where the filter is item 52,53, which is welded at the step near item 50,74; see at least paragraph 61 and 63; see paragraph 40 teaching flexible filter materials).
Putnam similarly teaches a beverage capsule with a first stepped region (see figure 5, item 40) and a second stepped region near a lid (see figure 5, item 25, 37), which second stepped region is useful for welding a filter thereto (see paragraph 33).
Since Accursi teaches that it has been advantageous to include both a filter attached to an upper stepped region together with a filtering plate positioned there-below, for the purpose of providing additional filtering of the produced beverage, to modify the combination and weld another type of known filter, such as a filter bag welded to a second stepped region near the lid, as taught by Crump, Hansen and Putnam would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art for the purpose of providing an additional degree of filtering of the beverage as it is being produced, as taught and suggested by Accursi using known and conventional expedients for achieving the additional filtering, such as by using a filter bag, as taught by Crump, Hansen and Putnam.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ferrier (US 20130122153) discloses filter materials that can retain any particles of ground coffee and therefore suggests retaining all sizes of ground coffee particles (paragraph 73).
Biesheuvel (US 20200140188) discloses an exit filter having a pore size of 0.1-10 microns such that at least 50% of particles of 1 micron or larger are retained (paragraph 13).
Ozanne (US 20120031794) discloses food safe materials such as aluminum for beverage capsules (paragraph 22)
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