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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-12) in the reply filed on 06/18/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 13-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention.
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 1-12 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.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites “a beverage container for preparing a beverage by injecting fluid into a cavity inside the beverage container that encloses a substance for beverage preparation”. It is unclear if the claim is requiring the beverage container to enclose a substance for beverage preparation or if that is part of the intended use of “for preparing…”.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites “the layer of the layered construction closest to the cellulose body”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 2, each instance of the phrase “preferably” renders the scope of the claim unclear, and it is unclear if each of the limitations following “preferably” are required.
Regarding claim 2, claim 2 recites “wherein the surface coating is configured to provide surface roughness in comparison to another layer of the layered structure”. It is noted that “A claim may be rendered indefinite when a limitation of the claim is defined by reference to an object and the relationship between the limitation and the object is not sufficiently defined” MPEP 2173.05b. It is unclear what is meant by “the surface coating is configured to provide surface roughness in comparison to another layer of the layered structure”. It is unclear if this means that the surface roughness of the coating layer is more than the surface roughness of another layer of the layered structure or less than the surface roughness of another layer of the layered structure since the claim does not specify. It is noted that the PGPUB specification at [0014] discloses that the surface coating is configured to provide a reduced surface roughness, see also paragraph [0063].
Claims 3-12 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on a rejected base 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 1-5, 7, 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cabilli US 2019/0225412 in view of Appleford US 2024/0051735.
Regarding claim 1, Cabilli discloses a beverage container ([0001]-[0003]) for preparing a beverage by injecting a fluid into a cavity inside the beverage container that encloses a substance for beverage preparation, the beverage container having a layered structure with a moisture and oxygen barrier function ([0080]), wherein the layered structure comprises a cellulose body (1420) defining the cavity ([0059]-[0065]), and coating layers (1423) which are applied on the cellulose body as a layered construction (at least one barrier layer) ([0078]), the layered construction comprising a moisture barrier coating to provide the moisture barrier function (at least one barrier layer) ([0078]-[0088]).
Claim 1 differs from Cabilli in the recitation that the coating layers comprise a surface coating being a base coating forming the layer of the layered construction closest to the cellulose body.
Appleford discloses a method of making a packaging material, the method involving: [0083] forming a substrate in a predetermined shape, the substrate being able to at least partly retain the predetermined shape in an unsupported condition; [0084] applying a first layer to a surface of the substrate; [0085] surface treating the applied first layer to improve the receptiveness of the first layer to bonding; and [0086] applying a second layer on the treated surface of the first layer, the second layer being efficacious in inhibiting the transmission of at least one of: oxygen gas, and water vapour therethrough, [0087] wherein the surface treating step facilitates adhesion of the second layer to the first layer. Appleford also discloses that the first layer (surface layer) contributes to provide increased barrier protection ([0156]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Cabilli such that the coating layers comprise a surface coating being a base coating forming the layer of the layered construction closest to the cellulose body as suggested by Appleford in order to provide a layer to help facilitate adhesion of the barrier layer to the cellulose body and additionally to help provide desired barrier function.
Regarding claim 2, It is noted that as discussed in the 112b rejection above claim 2 is unclear. Modified Cabilli discloses that the surface coating is configured to provide surface roughness in comparison to another layer (‘735, [0094]-[0099], [0166]).
Regarding claim 3, Modified Cabilli discloses that the surface coating provided as a surface layer is treated in a chemical process (‘735, [0217])
Regarding claim 4, Modified Cabilli discloses that the moisture barrier coating is directly applied to the surface coating, since the surface coating as taught by Appleford would facilitate adhesion of the barrier layer to the cellulose body and therefore the combination is suggesting applying the barrier layer to the surface coating. Modified Cabilli discloses that the moisture barrier coating is aluminum (‘412, [0085]).
Regarding claim 5, Modified Cabilli discloses that the layered structure further comprises an oxygen barrier layer (‘412, [0116]).
Regarding claim 7, Modified Cabilli discloses that the coating layers comprise an oxygen barrier coating (‘412, [0116]).
Regarding claim 9, Modified Cabilli discloses that the coating layers comprise a masking coating for protecting the integrity of the moisture barrier coating (1422) (Fig.3, [0096], [0097], [0098).
Regarding claim 10, Modified Cabilli discloses that the coating layers comprise a top layer coating forming an inside surface of the beverage container (1422) (Fig. 3, [0096], [0097], [0098)
Regarding claim 11, Modified Cabilli discloses that the outside of the beverage container is formed by the cellulose body (1420) (Fig. 3, [0096], [0097], [0098]). (The Examiner notes that Cabilli does not specify which of 1420/1422 is the inner and outer layer for the container, however since they are the same layer of cellulose, and the layered material forms the container ([0059], [0046]), one of 1420 or 1422 necessarily forms the outside and one of 1422 or 140 necessarily forms the inside of the container and has been arbitrarily selected).
Regarding claim 12, Modified Cabilli discloses the limitations of claim 12 (Fig. 1, 3, [0043], [0059])
Claims 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cabilli US 2019/0225412 in view of Appleford US 2024/0051735 in view of Andreae US 20170008694.
Regarding claim 6, Cabilli discloses providing a layer (1422) opposite to the cellulose body (1420) with respect to the coating layers (1423). Cabilli discloses that the layer (1422) is made from cellulose ([0061]-[0065]). Andreae teaches that cellulose provides oxygen barrier function ([0013]). Therefore, since layer (1422) of Modified Cabilli is made from cellulose, layer (1422) obviously can be considered an oxygen barrier layer, as taught by Andreae.
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 differs from Cabilli in the recitation that Cabilli specifically recites that the cellulose body (1420) comprises the oxygen barrier function. Andreae teaches that cellulose provides oxygen barrier function ([0013]). Therefore, the cellulose body (1420) obviously comprises the oxygen barrier function.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights