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 10, 13 and 21 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.
The term “generally” in claims 10, 13 and 21 is relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term “generally” is not defined by the claims, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The shape of the peripheral flange, the shape of the lid, the shape of the path of the first peripheral seal, and the shape of the path of the protrusion are rendered indefinite by the use of the term “generally” in the claim. For purposes of examination, the peripheral flange, the path of the first peripheral seal and the shape of the path of the protrusion are being construed as being “circular” and the lid is being construed as being “disc-shaped”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 7, 8, 16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kruger et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0261280 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kruger discloses a method of lidding a beverage capsule (Abstract of Kruger, method of producing a beverage portion capsule comprising fastening a capsule cover to a base element) comprising sealing a lid comprising a thermoplastic polymer ([0073] of Kruger, capsule cover formed from plastic such as polyethylene, polypropylene, PVC or PET which are thermoplastic materials) to a peripheral flange of a capsule body comprising or consisting of a thermoplastic polymer ([0071] of Kruger, base element #2 formed from a plastic such as polyethylene, polypropylene, PVC or PET which are thermoplastic materials) to form a beverage capsule having an internal volume containing beverage ingredients (Abstract of Kruger, capsule interior filled with beverage raw material); wherein sealing the lid to the peripheral flange comprises: - forming a first peripheral seal as a weld between the thermoplastic polymer of the peripheral flange and the thermoplastic polymer of the lid by using a sealing head to apply heat and pressure to the peripheral flange and the lid ([0074] of Kruger, seal between capsule cover and the cup-shaped basic element by introducing heat with a sealing stamp); and - simultaneously using the heat and pressure of the sealing head to form a recess in the peripheral flange ([0010] of Kruger, bead impressed directly as the capsule cover is being applied; [0048] of Kruger, sealing seam produced by introduction of heat by thermosealing; impressing the bead necessarily involves applying pressure) - optionally an annular recess that extends around the capsule body ([0012] of Kruger, bead impressed as a continuous channel which encircles the flange in circular form; limitation is optional and therefore not required) - such that the lid is sealed to the peripheral flange at least within the recess ([0030] of Kruger, sealing seam produced over at least parts of the bead).
Regarding claim 2, Kruger discloses that the recess: is formed as a groove in the peripheral flange, the groove comprising an inner land, an outer land and a floor that is located between the inner land and the outer land and that is recessed relative to the inner land and the outer land (FIG. 1 of Kruger, bead #6 formed as groove comprising inner land, outer land and floor recessed relative to inner and outer lands); or the recess is formed as a rabbet in the peripheral flange, the rabbet comprising an inner land and a floor located outwards of the inner land and that is recessed relative to the inner land (FIG. 2c of Land, bead forms a tapered rabbet with an inner land and a recessed floor outwards of the inner land; claim only requires one of the recited recess configurations).
Regarding claim 3, Kruger discloses that the recess is formed to comprise a wall portion leading from the inner land to the floor (FIG. 1 of Kruger, bead #6 has wall between inner land and floor).
Regarding claim 4, Kruger discloses that the peripheral flange prior to sealing with the lid has a flat receiving surface and the recess in the peripheral flange is formed into the flat receiving surface of the peripheral flange (FIG. 1, [0010] of Kruger, bead impressed directly as the capsule cover is being applied; since bead is formed as capsule cover is being applied, and since flange is otherwise flat except for the bead as shown in FIG. 1, flange receiving surface would necessarily be flat prior to impressing bead).
Regarding claim 7, Kruger discloses a beverage capsule comprising a capsule body and a lid, the capsule body and the lid together defining an internal volume of the beverage capsule for containing beverage ingredients (Abstract, FIG. 1 of Kruger); the capsule body comprising a peripheral flange that comprises or consists of a thermoplastic polymer (FIG. 1 of Kruger, base element includes flange; [0071] of Kruger, base element #2 formed from a plastic such as polyethylene, polypropylene, PVC or PET which are thermoplastic materials); the lid comprising a thermoplastic polymer ([0073] of Kruger, capsule cover formed from plastic such as polyethylene, polypropylene, PVC or PET which are thermoplastic materials); the lid being sealed to the peripheral flange to form a first peripheral seal able to withstand pressurisation of the internal volume during use ([0005] of Kruger, seal between capsule cover and flange withstands pressure during use), and the first peripheral seal comprises a weld between the thermoplastic polymer of the capsule body and the thermoplastic polymer of the lid ([0043] of Kruger, capsule cover fastened by hot sealing; [0048] of Kruger, heat sealing forms seam or weld); wherein, after the peripheral flange is sealed to the lid, a face of the peripheral flange in contact with the lid comprises a recess formed into the peripheral flange (FIG. 1 of Kruger, bead #6), wherein optionally the recess is an annular recess that extends around the capsule body ([0012] of Kruger, bead impressed as a continuous channel which encircles the flange in circular form; limitation is optional and therefore not required), and wherein the lid is sealed to the peripheral flange within the recess ([0030] of Kruger, sealing seam produced over at least parts of the bead).
Regarding claim 8, Kruger discloses that: the recess comprises a groove comprising an inner land, an outer land and a floor that is located between the inner land and the outer land and that is recessed relative to the inner land and the outer land (FIG. 1 of Kruger, bead #6); or the recess comprises a rabbet comprising an inner land and a floor located outwards of the inner land and that is recessed relative to the inner land (FIG. 2c of Land, bead forms a tapered rabbet with an inner land and a recessed floor outwards of the inner land; claim only requires one of the recited recess configurations); and optionally wherein the recess comprises a wall portion leading from the inner land to the floor and the lid is sealed to at least the wall portion (FIG. 1 of Kruger, inner land of bead #6; [0016] of Kruger, capsule cover fastened to bead over the full surface area; limitation is optional and therefore not required).
Regarding claim 16, Kruger discloses that the capsule body further comprises an annular wall located inwards of the peripheral flange that defines a manifold chamber of the beverage capsule (FIG. 5c of Kruger, region of flange #5 inside bead #6 that defines interior volume of cup-shaped basic element #2) and the lid is sealed to the annular wall to form a second peripheral seal (FIG. 5c, [0080] of Kruger, capsule cover #4 fastened to the flange #5 in the region of the bead).
Regarding claim 18, Kruger discloses a sealing head for lidding a beverage capsule (FIGS. 5a-5c of Kruger, sealing stamp #8), the sealing head comprising a peripheral sealing member for sealing a lid comprising a thermoplastic polymer to a peripheral flange of a capsule body comprising or consisting of a thermoplastic polymer to form a beverage capsule having an internal volume containing beverage ingredients (Abstract, FIGS. 5a-5c of Kruger, sealing stamp #8 used to form portion capsule for a beverage); the peripheral sealing member comprising a sealing surface for forming a first peripheral seal between the lid and the peripheral flange (FIGS. 5a-5c of Kruger, lower surface of sealing stamp #8); the sealing surface comprising a protrusion (FIGS. 5a-5c of Kruger, lower surface of sealing stamp #8 includes a bead protrusion #8’), optionally an annular protrusion that extends around the peripheral sealing member ([0012] of Kruger, bead impressed as a continuous channel which encircles the flange in circular or annular form; limitation is optional and therefore not required), for forming a recess in the peripheral flange when the sealing head is heated and pressed against the lid and capsule body ([0009]-[0010] of Kruger, bead #6 impressed in flange directly as the capsule cover is being applied; [0048] of Kruger, sealing seam produced by introduction of heat by thermosealing; impressing the bead necessarily involves applying pressure) in order to form the first peripheral seal by welding the lid to the peripheral flange at least within the recess ([0030] of Kruger, sealing seam produced over at least part of the bead).
Regarding claim 19, Kruger discloses that the protrusion: is shaped to form the recess as a groove in the peripheral flange, the groove comprising an inner land, an outer land and a floor that is located between the inner land and the outer land and that is recessed relative to the inner land and the outer land (FIG. 1 of Kruger, bead comprises inner and outer lands and recessed floor; [0009]-[0010] of Kruger, bead is formed as capsule cover is being applied; sealing stamp of Kruger therefore has a shape corresponding to the shape of the bead); or is shaped to form the recess as a rabbet in the peripheral flange, the rabbet comprising an inner land and a floor located outwards of the inner land and that is recessed relative to the inner land (FIG. 2c of Land, bead forms a tapered rabbet with an inner land and a recessed floor outwards of the inner land; claim only requires one of the recited recess configurations).
Regarding claim 20, Kruger discloses that the protrusion is shaped to form a wall portion leading from the inner land to the floor (FIG. 1 of Kruger, bead #6 formed by sealing stamp has wall between inner land and floor).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kruger in view of Thomas, Jr. (U.S. Patent No. 5,160,391, cited in IDS submitted March 29, 2024).
Regarding claim 5, Kruger does not specifically disclose that the sealing head is heated to a temperature of 200 to 250 degrees Celsius. Thomas, however, discloses a method of sealing a thermoplastic lid to a thermoplastic container using a heated seal head wherein the temperature of the heated seal head is 425-450 °F (218 to 232 °C) (Abstract, 8:40-47 of Thomas). According to Thomas, such temperatures achieve adequate burst pressure while not damaging the lid material (7:59-65 of Thomas). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to heat the sealing head in the method of Kruger to 218 to 232 °C during thermosealing. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to achieve adequate burst pressure while not damaging the lid material as taught by Thomas (7:59-65 of Thomas).
Regarding claim 6, discloses that the sealing head is pressed against the lid and the peripheral flange for 0.3 to 1.5 seconds (7:66-63 of Thomas, lid seal pressure applied for 1 second).
Claims 10, 11, 13-15 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kruger in view of Walter et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,141,594, cited in IDS submitted March 29, 2024).
Regarding claim 10, while Kruger discloses that the peripheral flange is generally circular and the lid is generally disc shaped ([0012] of Kruger, flange is circular; FIG. 1 of Kruger, lid extends over flange and would therefore also be circular or “disc shaped”), Kruger does not specifically disclose that the peripheral flange further comprises a flange tab that extends outwardly to form a graspable protrusion; the lid further comprises a lid tab that extends outwardly to form a graspable protrusion that overlies the flange tab; wherein the flange tab and the lid tab are not sealed to each other outwardly of the first peripheral seal. Walter, however, discloses a container with a lid wherein the lid and the flange of the container are provided with a tab that extends outwardly to form a graspable protrusion (Abstract, FIG. 3 of Walter, tearing open tab #13) wherein the flange tab and the lid tab are not sealed to each other outwardly of the first peripheral seal (FIGS. 1 and 6 of Walter, end of tab and flange not sealed). According to Walter, the tab allows for the lid to be pulled off easily (1:34-38 of Walter). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the portion capsule of Kruger with a tab structure as taught by Walter. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to allow for the lid to be pulled off easily as taught by Walter (1:34-38 of Walter).
Regarding claim 11, Walter discloses that a path of the first peripheral seal comprises a deviation to promote definition of a peel instigation point of the first peripheral seal (FIG. 3 of Walter, sealing points #11 form deviations in the seal or sealing fold-backs #8; 1:45-55 of Walter, deviations form tear initiation sites) and optionally wherein the deviation is in the region of the lid tab and the flange tab (FIG. 3 of Walter, sealing points located in region of lid and flange tabs; limitation is optional and therefore not required), and optionally is aligned with a centreline of the lid tab and the flange tab (FIGS. 1 and 6 of Walter, sealing fold-backs #8 aligned with centerline of lid and flange tabs; limitation is optional and therefore not required).
Regarding claim 13, Walter discloses that the deviation comprises an outward deviation of the first peripheral seal from an otherwise generally circular path.
Regarding claim 14, Walter discloses that the deviation comprises a stress focussing point (1:45-55 of Walter, sealing fold-backs #8 form tear initiation sites which reduces tearing open forces; since tearing open forces are reduced, sealing fold-backs #8 necessarily form stress focusing points).
Regarding claim 15, Walter does not specifically disclose that the peak peeling force for manually peeling the lid off of the capsule body after use of the beverage capsule is less than 50N, optionally less than 40N, optionally less than 30N, optionally less than 20N. Walter, however, discloses that the tearing open forces of the container (i.e., the peak peeling force) affect the ease with which the lid can be removed from the container (1:52-55 of Walter). Walter therefore establishes that the peak peeling force is a variable which achieves a recognized result (i.e., facilitating the ease of opening the container) (1:52-55 of Walter). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the peak peeling force for the portion capsule of Kruger, including providing a peak peeing force of less than 50 N as recited in claim 15. Moreover, as set forth in the MPEP, once a parameter is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977) (MPEP §2144.05 II B).
Regarding claim 21, Kruger does not specifically disclose that a path of the protrusion comprises a deviation to promote definition of a peel instigation point of the first peripheral seal; and optionally wherein the deviation comprises an outward deviation of the protrusion from an otherwise generally circular path; and optionally wherein the deviation comprises a stress focussing point. Walter, however, discloses a sealing tool for heat-sealing a lid to a container comprising an upper sealing jaw equipped with recesses (i.e., deviations) which start from the edge of the pressure surface (Abstract of Walter). According to Walter, the recesses form sealing fold-backs #8 along the edge of the seam that allow for the lid to be pulled off easily (FIG. 1, 1:34-38 of Walter). Also according to Walter, the sealing fold-backs #8 form tear initiation sites or stress focusing points which reduce tearing open forces (1:45-55 of Walter). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the bead protrusion of the sealing stamp of Kruger with recesses or deviations at the edge of the pressure surface as taught by Walter. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to form sealing fold-backs #8 along the edge of the seam thereby allowing for the lid to be pulled off easily as taught by Walter (1:34-38 of Walter).
Claims 17 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kruger in view of Halliday et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0173102 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Kruger does not specifically disclose that the capsule body further comprises a central tubular wall that defines or contains an outlet of the beverage capsule and the lid is sealed to the central tubular wall to form a third seal. Halliday, however, discloses a cartridge for the preparation of beverages wherein the cartridge includes an inner member comprising an inner tubular wall (FIGS. 7 and 11 of Halliday, inner member #3 including tubular wall #42) wherein the inner tubular member #42 is sealed or welded to the laminate #5 forming the lid of the container (FIG. 11, [0087] of Halliday, weld #125 formed between lower edge of outer tube #42 and laminate #5). According to Halliday, the inner member forms a discharge spout which directs the beverage into a receptacle while avoiding excessive splashing or spraying of the beverage ([0011] of Halliday). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the portion capsule of Kruger with an inner tubular wall that defines an outlet of the capsule to which the lid is sealed. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to provide the capsule with a discharge spout which directs the beverage into a receptacle while avoiding excessive splashing or spraying of the beverage as taught by Halliday ([0011] of Halliday).
Regarding claim 24, Kruger does not specifically disclose that the capsule body further comprises a central tubular wall that defines or contains an outlet of the beverage capsule and the lid is sealed to the central tubular wall to form a third seal. Halliday, however, discloses a cartridge for the preparation of beverages wherein the cartridge includes an inner member comprising an inner tubular wall (FIGS. 7 and 11 of Halliday, inner member #3 including tubular wall #42) wherein the inner tubular wall #42 is sealed or welded to the laminate #5 forming the lid of the container (FIG. 11, [0087] of Halliday, weld #125 formed between lower edge of outer tube #42 and laminate #5). According to Halliday, the inner member forms a discharge spout which directs the beverage into a receptacle while avoiding excessive splashing or spraying of the beverage ([0011] of Halliday). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the portion capsule of Kruger with an inner tubular wall to which the lid is sealed. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to provide the portion capsule with a discharge spout which directs the beverage into a receptacle while avoiding excessive splashing or spraying of the beverage as taught by Halliday ([0011] of Halliday).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER W. RAIMUND whose telephone number is (571) 270-7560. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00-4:30.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-5038. 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.
CHRISTOPHER W. RAIMUND
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1746
/CHRISTOPHER W RAIMUND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights