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 8-9 and 15-16 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 and 9, claims 8 and 9 recite that “and at least part of the void defining region of the sidewall is distal an interior cavity of the second container”. It is unclear how at least part of the void defining region of the sidewall is distal an interior cavity 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 claims 15 and 16, claims 15 and 16 recites “engaging a shoulder of the sidewall of the container that is profiled to maintain a void between a portion of the sidewall between a base and the shoulder”. It is unclear what is profiled to maintain a void, the shoulder or the container. It is unclear what void “a void between a portion of the sidewall between a base and the shoulder” is referring to, namely it is unclear if the container itself has a void or if the void is formed between the container and something else (see PGPUB paragraph [0070]).
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bunner US 2021/0070537.
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.
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.
PNG
media_image1.png
450
763
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Bunner discloses that the shoulder extends from the flange portion (116B) to a rim of the sidewall (see annotated Figure 15 Below).
PNG
media_image2.png
514
658
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 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, 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 9, 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, 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). It is noted that claim 9 appears to be a duplicate of claim 8.
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 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bartoli US 2018/0327178.
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, engaging a shoulder of a sidewall of the container that is profiled to maintain a void between a portion of the sidewall between a base and the shoulder and processing the precursor material (P) (Fig. 1, [0039]- [0041], see annotated Figure 1 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
436
904
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bunner US 2021/0070537 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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bunner US 2021/0070537 in view of Gugerli US 2012/0272830.
Regarding claim 5, claim 5 differs from Bunner in the recitation that Bunner specifically teaches the claimed shoulder depth distance S.
Gugerli 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).
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). While not explicitly recited, Fond obviously shows in Figure 5 that the method comprises engaging a shoulder of a sidewall of the container that 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).
PNG
media_image4.png
631
618
media_image4.png
Greyscale
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