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 § 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 8 and 15 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 claims 8, claim 8 recite that “and at least part of the void defining region of the sidewall is distal an interior cavity of the second container with respect to a base of the second container”. It is unclear what is meant by this limitation. It is unclear how at least part of the void defining region of the sidewall is distal an interior cavity of the second container with respect to a base of the second container when the container and second container are stacked because the entire void defining region of the container (i.e. the portion of the sidewall between the shoulder and the base) is within the interior cavity of the second container when the container and second container are stacked. See Figs. 15A and 15B. It is noted that it appears “distal” can also mean separate according to paragraph [0051] of the PGPUB specification.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 recites “a base” in line 9, it is unclear if “a base” in line 9 is the same as or different from “a base” in line 5.
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, 3-8 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bunner US 2021/0070537 in view of Gugerli US 2012/0272830.
It is noted that claim 1 recites “including” as a transitional phrase, and MPEP 2111.03.I recites “The transitional term "comprising", which is synonymous with "including," "containing," or "characterized by," is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps”, therefore “including” has been interpreted as “comprising”.
Regarding claim 1, Bunner discloses a container (Fig. 7) for use with a machine for preparing a beverage, the container including a storage portion (118I) comprising a cavity (118I) with sidewalls (118S) and a base (118F) for containing a precursor material ([0043], [0044]), a closing member (17) to close the storage portion (Fig. 2) and; a flange portion (116B) to interconnect the storage portion and the closing member ([0049]). Bunner discloses that the sidewalls comprise a shoulder (116S) ([0046], [0049]) proximal to the flange portion (116B) that extends outwardly to define a void defining region of the sidewall (118S) that is arranged between the sidewall and the base (see annotated Figure 7 below) ([0044]). It is noted that Applicant describes 126 as a void defining region in the specification (See PGPUB specification [0181]-[0183]), and the portion of the sidewall below the shoulder of Bunner shown in the annotated Figure 7 below can be considered a void defining region as well since the shoulder of Bunner is capable of engaging an upper region of the container holding portion of a processing unit of a machine with the void defining region positioned separated in the radial direction from the container holding portion to define a void therebetween.
Bunner discloses that the shoulder defines a linear outer surface between the flange portion (116B) and a rim of the sidewall (see annotated Figure 15 Below).
Regarding the limitation that the shoulder is arranged to engage a container holding portion of a processing unit, this is an intended use of the container, and the shoulder of Bunner is capable of engaging a container holding portion of a processing unit.
Claim 1 differs from Bunner in the recitation that the outer surface tapers with decreasing radial extent, however, absent compelling evidence of criticality, such a modification is seen to be a mere change in the shape of the shoulder (MPEP 2144.04.IV.B).
Additionally, it is noted that Gugerli discloses that the outer surface (26) between a flange (30) and rim (24) of a sidewall can taper with decreasing radial extent (Fig. 19, [0075]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Bunner such that the outer surface tapers with decreasing radial extent as taught by Gugerli as a matter of design choice.
PNG
media_image1.png
450
763
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
514
658
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Bunner discloses that the shoulder extends from the flange portion (116B) to the rim of the sidewall (see annotated Figure 15 above).
Regarding claim 4, Bunner discloses that the shoulder has a depth distance S between the flange portion and the rim of the sidewall of less than 70% of a total D of the storage portion (Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 5, claim 5 differs from Bunner in the recitation that Bunner specifically teaches the claimed shoulder depth distance S.
Gugerli, already relied upon above, discloses that the shoulder depth for a capsule can be adjusted in order to achieve an optimal sealing action ([0020]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to routinely adjust the shoulder depth distance S, including to values presently claimed in order to achieve an optimal sealing action (MPEP 2144.05.II).
Regarding claim 6, Bunner discloses that the void defining region extends from the shoulder to the base of the container (See annotated Figure 7 in claim 1).
Regarding claim 7, claim 7 is an intended use of the container and “A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." MPEP 2115, MPEP 2111.02.
Regarding claim 8, it is noted that “at least part of the void defining region of the sidewall is distal an interior cavity of the second container” raises 112b issues as discussed above. Bunner discloses that the container is arranged to be stacked within a second corresponding container, whereby a rim of the shoulder engages a flange portion of the second container (Figs. 14, 15). Regarding the limitation that at least part of the void defining region of the sidewall is distal an interior cavity of the second container with respect to a base of the second container, since Bunner teaches a substantially similar configuration of the container and stacked container and second container as Applicant, Bunner is seen to teach the limitation (Figs. 14, 15).
Regarding claim 10, Bunner discloses that the container comprises stiffener portions (118ST) to stiffen the void defining region of the sidewall (118S) (Fig. 9, [0044]).
Regarding claim 11, Bunner discloses that the stiffener portions protrude into an interior of the storage portion and not outwardly from an exterior (Fig. 11, [0045]).
Regarding claim 12, Bunner discloses that the stiffener portions are arranged as channels that bridge the base and void defining region of the sidewall (Fig. 12, [0044]).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bunner US 2021/0070537 in view of Gugerli US 2012/0272830 in view of DE 202017102574U1.
Regarding claim 2, claim 2 differs from Bunner in the recitation that the container is formed of a wood pulp material.
‘574 discloses forming a capsule from wood pulp material (Translation Pg. 2, paragraphs 6-7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute one known material for forming a capsule for another known material with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143.I.B).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bartoli US 2018/0327178 in view of Gugerli US 2012/0272830.
Regarding claim 15, Bartoli discloses a method of preparing a beverage, the method comprising arranging a container (capsule 1) containing a precursor material in a container holding portion (2) of a processing unit of a machine, wherein the container includes a storage portion comprising a cavity with sidewalls and a base containing the precursor material, a closing member (10) to the close the storage portion and a flange portion (7) to interconnect the storage portion and the closing member (Fig. 1, [0051], [0052]).
Bartoli discloses engaging a shoulder of a sidewall of the container, wherein the shoulder is profiled to maintain a void between the container holding portion and a portion of the sidewall that is between a base and the shoulder, and processing the precursor material (P) (Fig. 1, [0039]- [0041], see annotated Figure 1 below). Bartoli discloses that the shoulder defines a linear outer surface between a flange portion (7) and a rim of the sidewall.
Claim 15 differs from Bartoli in the recitation that the outer surface tapers with decreasing radial extent, however, absent compelling evidence of criticality, such a modification is seen to be a mere change in the shape of the shoulder (MPEP 2144.04.IV.B).
Additionally, it is noted that Gugerli discloses that the outer surface (26) between a flange (30) and rim (24) of a sidewall can taper with decreasing radial extent (Fig. 19, [0075]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Bartoli such that the outer surface tapers with decreasing radial extent as taught by Gugerli as a matter of design choice.
PNG
media_image3.png
436
904
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fond CA 2046558A1.
Regarding claim 16, Fond discloses a method of filling a container with precursor material (coffee), the method comprising arranging the container (43) in a container holding portion (support 64) of a filling machine (Fig. 5, Pg. 8, lines 25-30). Fond discloses that the container includes a storage portion comprising a cavity with sidewalls and a base for containing the precursor material and a flange portion to interconnect the storage portion and a closing member to close the storage portion after filling. While not explicitly recited, Fond obviously shows in Figure 5 that the method comprises engaging a shoulder of a sidewall of the container, wherein the shoulder is profiled to maintain a void between a portion of the sidewall between a base and the shoulder (see annotated Fig 5 portion below). Fond discloses filing the container (43) with the precursor material (69) (Fig. 5 Pg. 8, lines 25-30). Fond discloses that the shoulder defines a linear outer surface between the flange portion and a rim of the sidewall, the outer surface tapers with decreasing radial extent from the flange portion to the rim (Fig. 5).
Claim 16 differs from Fond in the recitation that the shoulder has a depth distance between a lower surface of the flange portion and an intersection of the rim and the outer surface that is less than about 15% of the total depth of the storage portion. However absent compelling evidence of criticality, such a modification is seen to be a mere change in the size/shape of the shoulder/capsule (MPEP 2144.04.IV.A and B).
PNG
media_image4.png
631
618
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/12/2026 have been fully considered however MPEP 2144.04.IV.A, B and Gugerli have been further relied upon for teaching the new claim 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
Prosecution Insights