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 .
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 14-15, 17, 19, 21-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bambagioni US 2021/0323758 in view of Dijkstra US 2018/0273286.
Regarding claim 14, Bambagioni discloses a single-dose capsule for preparing infusion or soluble beverages ([0044]) in an extraction device provided with an infusion chamber (Fig. 6, 5C, 7). Bambagioni discloses that the single-dose capsule comprises a cup (base body 1) ([0079]) made of aluminum ([0015], [0107]) comprising a bottom wall (1a), a collar (3) at an opposite end defining an opening (1c) (Fig. 5C), and an annular side wall (1b) extending in height along a central axis between said bottom wall and said collar (Fig. 5C, [0070]). Bambagioni discloses that the cup defines therein, a compartment containing at least one food substance ([0079]). Bambagioni discloses a cover sealingly closing said opening ([0036], [0076]-[0079]).
Bambagioni discloses that the collar (3) comprises a flat horizontal portion having a front face to which the cover is fastened ([0036]);
Bambagioni discloses that the collar comprises, internally with respect to the flat horizontal portion (2), a plastically deformable seal step (4a) for making a seal with the infusion chamber of the extraction device, said plastically deformable seal step comprising a raised portion that is tilted with respect to the central axis ([0117], Fig. 5C, 7); (see annotated Figure 7 below).
In the event claim 14 can be construed as differing from Bambagioni in the recitation that the raised portion of the plastically deformable step is tilted with respect to the central axis, since the purpose of the tilted raised portion of the plastically deformable step as disclosed by Applicant includes to allow the aluminum seal step to deform as a whole when clamped, and since the raised portion of the plastically deformable step of Bambagioni also allows the plastically deformable step (also made of aluminum) to deform as a whole when clamped (Figs. 7-8), absent compelling evidence of criticality, such a modification is seen to be a mere change in shape of the raised portion of the plastically deformable step (MPEP 2144.04.IV.B).
Bambagioni discloses that the annular side wall comprises a centering step (4b) for centering the cup inside the infusion chamber of the extraction device, said centering step (4b) comprising a raised portion that is tilted with respect to the central axis ([0126], Fig. 5C, 7); (see annotated Figure 7 below).
Bambagioni discloses that the plastically deformable seal step (step 4a) can be substantially parallel to the flange like rim ([0034], [0084]), therefore Bambagioni suggests that the plastically deformable seal step further comprises an abutment portion that is tilted with respect to a horizontal plane defined by the flat horizontal portion of the collar (see annotated Figure 7 below).
Claim 14 differs from Bambagioni in the recitation that said abutment portion of the plastically deformable seal step is specifically tilted by an angle between 4° and 12°.
However, given that Bambagioni discloses that the plastically deformable seal step (step 4a) can be substantially parallel to the flange like rim ([0034], [0084]) and therefore allows for shapes/angles that are substantially parallel to the flange like rim, the modification of the plastically deformable seal step to be tilted by an angle between 4° and 12° is seen to be merely close to the angle (the plastically deformable seal step (step 4a) can be substantially parallel to the flange like rim [0034], [0084]) of the plastically deformable seal step (4a) taught by Bambagioni (MPEP 2144.05.I) and additionally seen to be merely a change in shape of the plastically deformable seal step (4a) of Bambagioni (MPEP 2144.04.IV.B).
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 differs from Bambagioni in the recitation that the raised portion of the plastically deformable step is tilted by an angle between 2° and 6°. However, since the purpose of the tilted raised portion of the plastically deformable step as disclosed by Applicant includes to allow the aluminum seal step to deform as a whole when clamped, and since the raised portion of the plastically deformable step of Bambagioni also allows the plastically deformable step (also made of aluminum) to deform as a whole when clamped (Figs. 7-8), absent compelling evidence of criticality, such a modification is seen to be a mere change in shape of the raised portion of the plastically deformable step (MPEP 2144.04.IV.B).
Regarding claim 14, Bambagioni discloses that the raised portion of the plastically deformable step extends for about 1mm (H of 4a is between 1 and 3mm) ([0087])
Regarding claim 14, Bambagioni discloses that the abutment portion of the plastically deformable seal step (4a) extends for about 1mm (length d= 0.5 to 3mm) ([0112]).
PNG
media_image1.png
634
1185
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Further regarding claim 14, regarding the remaining limitations, the claims are only directed to a capsule and the remaining limitations are an intended use of the capsule, which do not further limit the structure of the capsule as claimed and which the capsule of Bambagioni is seen to be capable of being used for, absent evidence to the contrary. It is noted that the sealing of the flange to the infusion chamber edge also depends on the particular shape of the infusion chamber edge. It is noted that the sealing step of Bambagioni deforms similarly to Applicants sealing step as shown in the Figures of Bambagioni and Applicants Figures and it is noted that while the infusion chamber of the extraction device of Bambagioni is differently shaped than Applicants, the claims are directed to only the capsule which are product claims, not method claims and therefore use with the particular extraction chamber is an intended use of the capsule.
In any case, it is noted that Bambagioni discloses the new shape of the flange like rim 2 presents at least three new surfaces S1, S2, S3. Bambagioni discloses these surfaces allow to perfectly conform with the sealing profile of the capsule engagement member 21 ([0104], [0019], [0127]-[0130]). Bambagioni discloses that conformation has the effect to increase the contact surface area between the engagement member 21 and the capsule flange like rim 2 and therefore increase fluid tightness between the capsule and the beverage machine ([0127]-[1028]). Bambagioni also discloses that the proposed embodiments show a capsule engagement member 21 with a given geometry however other geometries of capsule engagement mat be envisaged ([0130]).
Dijkstra shows an infusion chamber of an extraction device comprises a compression edge of a double crown type comprising two circular crowns which define an internal edge and an external edge connected by an annular recess (Fig. 5B), Djijkstra discloses that the flange of a capsule rim can be deformed to seal the compression edge of the infusion chamber of the extraction device along at least a first seal against the external edge and a second seal along the internal edge within the annular recess (See Fig. 5B, [0103], [0104]). Since Bambagioni already desires increasing the contact surface area between the engagement member 21 and the capsule flange like rim 2 to increase fluid tightness between the capsule and the beverage machine, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Bambagioni such that the flange of the capsule rim can be deformed to seal the compression edge of the infusion chamber of the extraction device along at least a first seal against the external edge and a second seal along the internal edge within the annular recess as suggested by Dijkstra in order to increase the contact surface area between the engagement member and the capsule flange like rim to increase fluid tightness between the capsule and the beverage machine.
PNG
media_image2.png
418
620
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, Bambagioni discloses that the centering step (4b) comprises an abutment portion that is tilted with respect to the horizontal plane defined by the flat horizontal portion of the collar (see annotated Figure 7 above).
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 differs from Bambagioni in the recitation that the raised portion of the plastically deformable step is tilted by an angle of 4°. However, since the purpose of the tilted raised portion of the plastically deformable step as disclosed by Applicant includes to allow the aluminum seal step to deform as a whole when clamped, and since the raised portion of the plastically deformable step of Bambagioni also allows the plastically deformable step (also made of aluminum) to deform as a whole when clamped (Figs. 7-8), absent compelling evidence of criticality, such a modification is seen to be a mere change in shape of the raised portion of the plastically deformable step (MPEP 2144.04.IV.B).
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 is rejected for the same reasons given above for claim 14.
Regarding claim 21, claim 21 differs from Bambagioni in the recitation that the raised portion of the centering step is titled by an angle between 5° and 11°. However, Applicant’s disclosed purpose of the raised portion of the centering step is to allow the capsule to be centered, and the raised portion of the centering step of Bambagioni also allows the capsule to be centered ([0126]), therefore, absent compelling evidence of criticality, such a modification is seen to be a mere change in shape of the raised portion of the centering step (MPEP 2144.04.IV.B).
Regarding claim 22, claim 22 differs from Bambagioni in the recitation that the raised portion of the centering step is titled by an angle of 8°. However, Applicant’s disclosed purpose of the raised portion of the centering step is to allow the capsule to be centered, and the raised portion of the centering step of Bambagioni also allows the capsule to be centered ([0126]), therefore, absent compelling evidence of criticality, such a modification is seen to be a mere change in shape of the raised portion of the centering step (MPEP 2144.04.IV.B).
Regarding claim 23, Bambagioni discloses that the raised portion of the centering step extends for 2mm (second step 4b has a height h comprised between 0.2-2mm), which is merely close to the claimed about 3mm, especially since “about 3mm” allows for values slightly less than 3mm, and “a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close”. (MPEP 2144.05.I). It is additionally noted that the purpose of the centering step is for centering the capsule ([0126]) which is the same function as Applicant’s centering step and absent compelling evidence of criticality, can also be considered a mere change is size/shape of the raised portion of the centering step (MPEP 2144.04.IV.A,B) “the Federal Circuit held that, 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” (MPEP 2144.04.IV.A).
Regarding claim 24, Bambagioni discloses that the abutment portion of the centering step is tilted by an angle of 10°-80° ([0113], Fig. 7, see annotated Figure below), encompassing the claimed range (MPEP 2144.05.I).
PNG
media_image3.png
610
1161
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 25, Bambagioni discloses that the abutment portion of the centering step is tilted by an angle of 10°-80° ([0113], Fig. 7, see annotated Figure below), encompassing the claimed value (MPEP 2144.05.I).
PNG
media_image3.png
610
1161
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 26, Bambagioni discloses that the abutment portion of the centering step extends for about 0.5 mm (D = 0.5-4mm, d= 0.5-3mm, D-d= 0-1mm) ([0083], [0112], Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 27, Bambagioni discloses that the flat horizontal portion extends for about 1mm (L= 2-4 mm, D= 0.5-4mm, L-D includes a value of about 1mm) ([0075], [0083]).
Regarding claims 29-30, this is further limiting an intended use of the capsule, which intended use does not further limit the structure of the capsule.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bambagioni US 2021/0323758 in view of Dijkstra US 2018/0273286 in view of Marty WO 2014/067507A2 (Espacenet Translation).
Regarding claim 28, Bambagioni discloses that the bottom wall comprises a perforable central portion ([0089]).
Claim 28 differs from Bambagioni in the recitation that the bottom wall comprises a reinforcement edge defining a wavy shape surrounding the perforable central portion.
Marty discloses a capsule where the bottom wall comprises a reinforcement edge (66) defining a wavy shape surrounding the perforable central portion (69/70) (Fig. 5) (Espacenet Translation [84], [46]). Marty discloses providing bottom wall with a reinforcement edge (66) defining a wavy shape in order for the capsule to adhere less to a capsule holder and also increases the buckling load (Espacenet Translation [56]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Bambagioni such that the bottom wall comprises a reinforcement edge defining a wavy shape surrounding the perforable central portion as taught by Marty in order for the capsule to adhere less to a capsule holder and also increase the buckling load.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pg. 8 of the remarks, applicant argues that respectfully, there remains a significant technical distinction between the claimed capsule and the Bambagioni capsule, namely the specific manner in which the sealing step deforms when compressed by the engagement member. As shown in the annotated figure below, the sealing step undergoes a controlled deformation that results in sealing being achieved at least at two distinct points, identified as points A and B. This deformation pattern is not merely incidental but reflects a purposeful structural configuration that ensures a more reliable and stable sealing effect.
On pg. 9 of the remarks Applicant argues that while Bambagioni also shows a wavy crease formed by the deformation of the sealing step, the Bambagioni Figures (see, e.g., FIG. 8, reproduced below with annotations for convenience) clearly indicates that this crease does not appear to come into contact with the outer annular portion of the compression edge of the enclosure member. Applicant argues that this is a crucial difference: in Bambagioni, the deformation does not give rise to the secondary sealing area corresponding to point B. By contrast, in the claimed capsule, the deformation of the sealing step distinctly generates this additional sealing zone, thereby providing a more stable and reliable sealing interface. This additional sealing region represents a structural and functional effect that is neither taught nor suggested in Bambagioni and therefore constitutes a meaningful technical distinction supporting inventive step.
Applicant’s detailed remarks and images provided are appreciated. However, the claims are only directed to a capsule and the new limitations directed towards the infusion chamber and use of the capsule with the infusion chamber are an intended use of the capsule, which do not further limit the structure of the capsule as already claimed and which the capsule of Bambagioni is seen to be capable of being used for, absent evidence to the contrary. It is noted that Applicant has not provided a sufficient showing that the specific claimed angles are critical (see MPEP 716). It is also noted that the sealing of the flange to the infusion chamber edge also depends on the particular shape of the infusion chamber edge. The sealing step of Bambagioni deforms similarly to Applicants sealing step as shown in the Figures of Bambagioni and Applicants Figures and it is noted that while the infusion chamber edge of the extraction device of Bambagioni is differently shaped than Applicants, as discussed above the claims are directed to only the capsule which are product claims, not a combination of capsule and apparatus or method claims and therefore use with the particular extraction chamber is an intended use of the capsule. In any case, Dijkstra was further relied upon to teach the new limitations.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHLEY AXTELL whose telephone number is (571)270-0316. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00- 5:30.
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.
/A.A/
Ashley AxtellExaminer, Art Unit 1792
/VIREN A THAKUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792