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 for the following reasons:
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "3" and "6" have both been used to designate the sealing membrane as shown in figure 4.
Additionally, on page 11, lines 20 and 34, reference character “6” has been used to designate “one or more flat parts” and “the opening.”
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
On page 12, line 28, reference character “74” referring to “the recess” cannot be found in the figures.
The drawings are also objected to because on page 13, lines 30-31, the specification refers to figure 5 as comprising “two chamfers 171” however, the figure is only pointing to what appears to be one chamfer.
On page 15, line 6, the specification refers to “the top membrane 8” when referring to figure 8, which reference character cannot be found in the figure.
On page 19, line 33, reference character “6” has been used to refer to “plane section” however this appears to differ from what has been presented on page 11, line 19 which refers to “one or more flat sections”; line 20 referring to “one or more flat parts” and line 34, referring to “the opening.” Therefore clarification is required.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 7 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites, “said walls” on line 5. While it is clear that this limitation is referring to “one or more side walls” for matters of form, the limitation should be amended to recite, “said one or more side walls.”
Claim 1 recites, “the flange” on line 12 and “said flange” on line 20. Claim 3 also recites, “the flange” on line 3. While it is clear that these limitations are referring to “a circumferential flange” for matters of form, the limitation should be amended to recite, “the circumferential flange” and “said circumferential flange.”
Claim 1 recites, “said fixing section” on line 21 and 23. While it is clear that this limitation is referring to “at least one circumferential transverse fixing section” for matters of form, the limitation should be amended to recite, “said at least one circumferential transverse fixing section.”
Claim 2 recites, “the transverse fixing section” on line 1-2. Claim 9 recites, “the transverse fixing section” on line 2. Claim 6 also recites, “the circumferential transverse fixing section” on lines 3-4. Claim 7 also recites, “the circumferential transverse fixing section” on line 2. While it is clear that these limitations are referring to “at least one circumferential transverse fixing section” for matters of form, the limitations should be amended to recite, “said at least one circumferential transverse fixing section.”
Claim 7 recites, “said recess” on lines 2-3 and 5. While it is clear that this limitation is referring to “at least one recess” for matters of form, the limitation should be amended to recite, “said at least one recess.”
Claim 12 recites, “said flange” on line 6 and line 8. While it is clear that this limitation is referring to “a circumferential flange” for matters of form, the limitation should be amended to recite, “said circumferential flange.”
Claim 12 recites, “said fixing section” on line 9 and “the transverse fixing section” on line 16. While it is clear that these limitations are referring to “at least one circumferential transverse fixing section” for matters of form, the limitation should be amended to recite, “said at least one circumferential transverse fixing section.”
Claim 12 recites, “and presses the top membrane in the at least one transverse fixing section” on line 17. This limitation should be amended to recite, “and presses the top membrane into the at least one transverse fixing section.”
Claim 12 recites the limitation, “the at least one transverse fixing section of the capsule” on line 17. While it is clear that this limitation is intending to refer to “at least one circumferential transverse fixing section” as recited on lines 8-9, for matters of form, this limitation should be amended to recite, “the at least one circumferential transverse fixing section” and deleting “of the capsule.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-11 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 upper surface of said circumferential flange” on line 10. The limitation, “the upper surface” lacks proper antecedent basis because it is not clear what previous recitation of “upper surface” this is referring to. That is no previous recitation of “an upper surface” and there can be multiple upper surfaces of the circumferential flange to which the membrane has been attached, thus making the limitation lack proper antecedent basis. This rejection can be overcome by amending the limitation to recite, “an upper surface.”
Claim 1 recites the limitation “globally” on line 12. The scope of the term is not clear and the specification does not provide further guidance as to what it means for “the top membrane and the flange” to extend globally along a common plane. The specification only refers to the term on page 3, line 30 and page 9, line 30 without providing sufficient guidance as to the meaning of the term.
Claim 3 recites the limitation, “the radially inward end” and “the radially outward end” on lines 2-3. These limitations lack proper antecedent basis because there is no previous recitation of “a radially inward end” and “a radially outward end” thus making the claim unclear as to what structure these limitations are referring to.
Claim 5 recites the limitation, “preferably” on line 3. Claim 6 also recites the limitation, “preferably” on line 5. The term, “preferably” makes the claim unclear as to whether the limitations following the term “preferably” are required.
Claim 7 recites the limitation, “the upper surface of the flange” which lacks proper antecedent basis. The limitation, “the upper surface” lacks proper antecedent basis because it is not clear what upper surface this is referring to.
Claim 7 recites, “the bottom of the said recess.” This limitation lacks proper antecedent basis because it is not clear as to what bottom of the recess is being referred to. This rejection can be overcome by amending the limitation to recite, “a bottom of the at least one recess.”
Claim 8 recites the limitation, “said recess” which lacks proper antecedent basis as the claim from which it depends does not recite a recess.
Claim 10 recites the limitation, “such as” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 2, 4, 6, 9 and 11 are rejected based on their dependence to a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Denisart (US 20040228955) in view of Kruger (WO 2019149875 - cited on IDS; referred to as Kruger875).
Regarding Kruger (WO 2019149875) a machine translation has been relied on and is included with this Office Action.
Regarding claim 1, Denisart teaches a capsule (figure 7) for use in a beverage preparation machine, said capsule containing a soluble and/or extractable beverage ingredient (paragraph 59 where ground coffee and tea are extractable and instant coffee can be construed as soluble), said capsule comprising: a capsule body defining a chamber (see figure 7, inside item 66), said capsule body comprising: one or more side walls (figure 7, item 66), said walls extending axially towards a top opening, and a circumferential flange that extends radially outward from the one or more side walls (see figure 7, item 68), and a bottom beverage outlet (figure 7, item 77), and a top membrane (figure 7, item 67) attached to at least a part of the upper surface of the said circumferential flange and closing the top opening (see figure 7 where the top membrane 67 is attached to the upper surface of the flange 68) and the top membrane is adapted to be punctured for liquid injection into the capsule (see for example paragraph 42 and paragraph 74 and figure 14), the top membrane and the flange extending globally along a common plane (it is not clear as to what it means to extend globally however, since the reference discloses the flange and the top membrane sealed to each other around the entire circumference of the capsule, they have been construed as extending globally), and a bottom membrane (figure 7, item 72), provided inside the chamber so as to delimit between the top membrane and said bottom membrane an ingredient chamber, and an opening device (figure 7, item 73 which also has pyramidal spikes and a plate) provided inside the capsule body and adapted to open the ingredient chamber by relative engagement of said opening device with the bottom membrane under the effect of the liquid pressure increase in the ingredient chamber during injection of said liquid (see paragraph 67: “the rise in pressure will press the thin film (72) against the puncturing means”).
Claim 1 differs from Denisart in specifically reciting that the upper surface of said flange comprises at least one circumferential transverse fixing section, said fixing section extending transversely to the common plane, and wherein the top membrane is attached at least to said fixing section.
Kruger875 teaches a capsule for use in a beverage preparation machine (figure 1, item 2; paragraph 12), which capsule comprises a top membrane (figure 1, item 4) attached to a part of an upper surface of a circumferential flange (see figure 1, item 5 and 6). Kruger875 teaches that the upper surface of the flange comprises at least one circumferential transverse fixing section (see figure 1, item 6; see paragraph 12 of the machine translation which discloses that the groove as shown in figure 1 is a circumferential groove). The groove is a fixing section to which the top membrane is secured (see paragraph 12 of the machine translation, “…characterized in that the capsule lid is at least partially attached to the flange in the region of the groove”; see paragraph 13: “Preferably, the capsule lid is fully attached to the groove…”). Kruger875’s fixing section extends transversely to the common plane. That is Kruger875’s fixing section extends transversely to the plane on which the top membrane and the flange extend. Kruger875 teaches that such a fixing section can be useful for securely sealing the capsule lid to withstand pressure that can be generated from gas emitted from the raw beverage material inside the capsule (see paragraph 10 of the machine translation: “The beverage raw material inside the portion capsule emits gases…” and onward). At paragraph 17, Kruger875 teaches that such raw beverage materials includes roast coffee granules.
Since Denisart also teaches raw beverage materials such as roast coffee, and does not provide any specificity as to how the top membrane has been sealed to the capsule flange (see paragraph 72 and 75), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified Denisart to provide a fixing section, as taught by Kruger875, for the purpose of ensuring that the lid remained securely affixed to the capsule flange so as to prevent generation of pressure buildup during storage, such as due to the release of gas from the food from breaking the seal between the capsule and the lid.
Regarding claim 2, Kruger875 teaches that the transverse fixing section “can” comprise at least one circumferential recess around the top opening (see figure 1 item 6 and paragraph 12 which discloses a circumferential groove).
Regarding claim 3, Kruger875 teaches that the at least one circumferential transverse fixing section is positioned between the radially inward end of the flange and the radially outward end of the flange (see figure 1, where an outward end can be near item 9 and an inward end can be near item 5).
Regarding claim 4, Kruger875 teaches that a depth of the at least one circumferential transverse fixing section extends by a length of at least 0.2 mm (see paragraph 28). Applicant’s specification on page 11, lines 15-17 discloses that the length corresponds to a dimension along direction that is perpendicular to the common plane. (see figure 2A, item “l”) and therefore Kruger875’s depth is seen to be analogous to the claimed “length.”
Regarding claim 5, Kruger875 teaches that the at least one circumferential transverse fixing section extends by a width of at least 0.8 mm (see paragraph 29, 0.2-5mm and most preferably approximately 3mm), thus teaching and suggesting a width that falls within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 6, Kruger875 discloses that the at least one circumferential transverse fixing section comprises at least one radially inward end and at said radially inward end
PNG
media_image1.png
468
458
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Kruger875 teaches that the circumferential transverse fixing section comprises at least one recess, said recess extending transversely to the common plane and from the upper surface of the flange inside the flange, and wherein the bottom of the said recess presents a round concave shape (see figure 2g and 2h).
Regarding claim 8, Kruger teaches a radially inward side and a radially outward side of said recess present straight surfaces (see figure 1 and Figure 2a-2f).
Regarding claim 9, Kruger teaches that the top membrane is fixed to the transverse fixing section y heat sealing (see paragraph 22 of the machine translation, last three lines: “It is also conceivable that the sealing seam was produced by introducing the heat through thermal sealing”).
Regarding claim 12, Denisart teaches a method for manufacturing a capsule said method comprising the steps of: providing a capsule body defining a chamber (see figure 7), said capsule body comprising: one or more side walls (figure 7, item 66), said walls extending towards a top opening (figure 7 and the opening that has been closed by the membrane 67), and a circumferential flange that extends radially outward from the one or more side walls (see figure 7, item 68), said flange extending along a plane, and a bottom outlet (figure 7, item 77), wherein an upper surface of said flange comprises at least one circumferential transverse fixing section (i.e. the surface to which the top membrane has been sealed).
Denisart teaches introducing an opening device (see figure 8 and 9) inside the capsule body (see paragraph 68-69: “an injection-molded disc placed on the bottom of the cup”),
attaching a bottom membrane (figure 10, item 92) inside the capsule body and above the opening device (see paragraph 72: “Thereafter, the thin film is sealed onto the internal edges of the bottom of the cup”) and
filling the capsule body with beverage ingredient (see paragraph 72: “and the substance is filled), and
fixing a top membrane to the upper surface of the flange of the capsule body (see paragraph 72: “finally the membrane is sealed”).
Claim 12 differs from Denisart in specifically reciting that, “said fixing section extending transversely to the plane,” and that the top membrane is fixed to the upper surface of the flange of the capsule body by applying heat to the top membrane positioned along the flange with a heating die, wherein the heating die presents a shape complementary to the transverse fixing section of the flange and heats and presses the top membrane in the at least one transverse fixing section of the capsule.
Kruger875 teaches filling a beverage raw material into a capsule body and then closing the capsule body with a capsule lid (see paragraph 89). As discussed above with respect to claim 1, Kruger teaches that there is at least one circumferential transverse fixing section, extending transversely to the plane along which the flange extends.
Kruger875 further teaches that the top membrane is placed onto the upper surface of the flange (see figure 1 and 6a-6c) and that a heating die (figure 6, item 8) having a shape that is complementary to the transverse fixing section of the capsule is heated and presses the top membrane into the at least one circumferential transverse fixing section (see paragraph 50, “sealing with a sealing die having a beaded protrusion, by introducing heat…”; “securing by applying heat…Preferably, a sealing die with a beaded protrusion is used, which is complementary in size and shape to the bead, so that the beaded protrusion enters the bead and at least …fully presses the capsule lid against the walls of the bead and secures the capsule lid…fully in the bead.” See also paragraph 52, 97 and also see figure 4 and paragraph 101). By teaching the sealing of the membrane to the flange is done by introducing of a sealing die having a beaded protrusion and by introducing heat, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that Kruger 875 is teaching and suggesting that heat has been applied to the top membrane with a die that is heated and which die heats and presses the top membrane in the at least one circumferential transverse fixing section of the capsule, for the purpose of providing a more securely sealed lid.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified Denisart to provide a fixing section that extends transverse to the plane that the flange extends on, and to fix the top membrane to the upper surface of the flange by applying heat to the top membrane positioned along the flange with a heating die, wherein the eating die presents a shape complementary to the fixing section of the flange and heats and presses the top membrane in the at least one transverse fixing section of the capsule, as taught by Kruger875, for the purpose of ensuring that the lid remained securely affixed to the capsule flange so as to prevent generation of pressure buildup during storage, such as due to the release of gas from the food from breaking the seal between the capsule and the lid.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination as applied to claim 1 above, which relies on Denisart (US 20040228955) as the primary reference, and in further view of Garcin (US 20160362246).
Regarding claim 10, Denisart teaches that the capsule body and the top membrane are made of the same material, such as polypropylene (see paragraph 56 and 57). That is, at paragraph 56, Denisart teaches that the closed chamber can comprise a cup and a membrane, of which the plastic can be polypropylene. At paragraph 58, Denisart teaches that the thin film and the closed chamber can be made of the same material, thus teaching and suggesting that the closing membrane and the capsule body are made of the same recyclable plastic, such as polypropylene.
If it could have been construed that Denisart did not provide sufficient specificity with respect to the material of the capsule and the top membrane, then Kruger875 specifically teaches and suggests that the top membrane and the capsule can both be made from polypropylene (see paragraph 91 and 93). Additionally, Garcin teaches that the body and lid of the capsule can be made of polypropylene (see paragraph 99).
To therefore modify Denisart, who already suggests polypropylene for the top membrane and the capsule body and to specifically use polypropylene, as taught by Kruger875 and Garcin, would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, based on known materials of construction usable for both the capsule body and top sealing membrane of a capsule used to prepare a beverage.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination as applied to claim 1 above, which relies on Denisart (US 20040228955) as the primary reference, and in further view of Garcin (US 20160362246) and Kruger (US 20240335061 referred to as Kruger061).
Regarding claim 11, the claim differs from the combination as applied to claim 1 in specifically reciting that the capsule and the top membrane are made of compostable and/or biodegradable material.
Garcin teaches that the body and lid of the capsule can be made of materials such as PLA-starch compounds (see paragraph 99) thus suggesting compostable and/or biodegradable material.
Nonetheless, if it could have been construed that Garcin did not specifically teach compostable and/or biodegradable material, then Kruger061 teaches a single serve beverage capsule where the single serve capsule, base element, flange and lid can be produced from a compostable material or a biologically decomposable material (see paragraph 31) for the purpose of being able to compost the entire capsule (see paragraph 44). Kruger061 also suggests materials such as polypropylene (see paragraph 62).
To therefore modify the combination and use materials for the capsule body and the top membrane that are compostable and/or biodegradable would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art for the purpose of making the capsule more environmentally friendly.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sager (US 4769095) evidences that it has been known to provide a flange which comprises a fixing section that extends transverse to a plane of the flange (see figure 2, item 38, 40, 42; and figure) and where a membrane can be sealed into the fixing section for the known purpose of closing an end of a thermoplastic body (see column 1, lines 5-11, 19-25, 55-59). Sager teaches that the film 22 can adhere to all portions of the fixing section (column 3, lines 12-18) and provides for an improved clean and pleasing appearance (see column 3, lines 30-34).
Bartoli (US 20160362247) discloses a fixing section in a flange to which a top membrane has been sealed (figure 5, item 10, 11, 27).
Doleac (US 20120052164) discloses in figure 5, item 5 what appears to be a fixing section on the flange of the capsule.
Akazawa (US 5176314) discloses a fixing section of a flange into which a sealing membrane has been sealed (figures 310).
Kruger (US 20220097954) discloses a section of a flange over which a membrane is sealed, which section can have transverse walls with an angle of 85 degrees
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