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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on April 26, 2024, July 15, 2025, and October 1, 2025 were filed. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the limitation “said lateral wall” in line 6 as well as in line 10. It appears the claim should recite “said tubular lateral wall” in order to maintain consistency with “a tubular lateral wall” recited in Claim 1, lines 4-5.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the lateral wall “in line 2. It appears the claim should recite “the tubular lateral wall” in order to maintain consistency with “a tubular lateral wall” recited in Claim 1, lines 4-5.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the lateral wall” in line 5. It appears the claim should recite “the tubular lateral wall” in order to maintain consistency with “a tubular lateral wall” recited in Claim 1, lines 4-5.
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 2-3, 6-7,and 9 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “wherein the protruding part is integral with both the lateral wall and said annular flange of the capsule and is made of cellulose pulp” in lines 2-3. It is unclear if the phrase “is made of cellulose pulp” modifies “the protruding part,” “the lateral wall,” “said annular flange,” or “the capsule.”
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the maximum density of said lateral wall” in line 3. It is unclear what differentiates a “maximum” density compared to a regular density.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the cavity” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “preferable is about 135°” in line 6. The phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 9 recites the limitation “wherein the cup shaped body is made of cellulose pulp” in line 2. It is unclear if this refers to “cellulose pulp” recited in Claim 1, line 4 or to an entirely different cellulose pulp. For purposes of examination Examiner interprets the claim to refer to the same cellulose pulp.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “an oxygen barrier liner attached at the inner and/or outer surface of said cup shaped body made of cellulose pulp” in lines 3-5. It is unclear if the phrase “made of cellulose pulp” modifies “an oxygen barrier liner” or if the phrase “made of cellulose pulp” modifies “said cup shaped body.”
Claim 9 recites the limitation “a home compostable polymer” in lines 5-6. It is unclear what constitutes a “home” compostable polymer. It is unclear what differentiates a “home” compostable polymer” from a regular compostable polymer.
Clarification is required.
Claim 6 is rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bosetti et al. US 2021/0107731 in view of Orler US 2020/0253413 (cited on Information Disclosure Statement filed October 1, 2025).
Regarding Claim 1, Bosetti et al. discloses a capsule (capsule 1) comprising a cup shaped body and a cover (covering element 11) for closing the cup shaped body wherein the cup shaped body is made of a biodegradable material (‘731, Paragraph [0036]). The cup shaped body comprises a bottom wall (bottom wall 3), a lateral wall (sidewall 2), and an annular flange (flange 14) for the cover (covering element 11) to seal thereon (‘731, Paragraph [0045]). The lateral wall (sidewall 2) and the annular flange (flange 14) is connected by a connecting wall (connection portion 2b) of the cup shaped body wherein the connecting wall (connection portion 2b) comprises at least a part protruding outward with respect to the lateral wall (sidewall 2) (‘731, FIG. 1A) (‘731, Paragraphs [0053]-[0056]). The protruding part cooperates with an edge (abutment surface 18) of a capsule enclosing member (piston 100) of a beverage preparation device (‘731, FIG. 2A) (‘731, Paragraphs [0051] and [0060]).
PNG
media_image1.png
837
1248
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Bosetti et al. discloses the capsule being made entirely of compostable material (‘731, Paragraph [0036]). However, Bosetti et al. is silent regarding the compostable material to be cellulose pulp.
Orler discloses a capsule (cartridge 112) comprising a cup shaped body (cartridge body 200) made of compostable cellulose pulp (‘413, FIG. 2) (‘413, Paragraph [0044]) wherein the capsule (cartridge 112) further comprises a cover (cover 204) for closing the cup shaped body (cartridge body 200) and the cup shaped body (cartridge body 200) comprises a bottom wall (bottom 212), a lateral wall (side 208), and an annular flange (rim 218) for the cover (cover 204) to seal thereon (‘413, Paragraphs [0045]-[0046]).
Both Bosetti et al. and Orler are directed towards the same field of endeavor of beverage capsules used in a beverage preparation device. Both beverage capsules of Bosetti et al. and Orler are made of compostable materials. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the compostable beverage capsule of Bosetti et al. and make the cup shaped body out of a compostable cellulose pulp as taught by Orler since the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination in view of Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (MPEP § 2144.07). Orler teaches that there was known utility in the beverage capsule art to construct the cup shaped body of the beverage capsule out of biodegradable cellulose pulp.
Further regarding Claim 1, the limitations “for the preparation of a beverage in a beverage preparation device,” “for closing the cup shaped body,” “for the cover to seal thereon,” and “said at least a protruding part cooperating with an edge of a capsule enclosing member of the beverage preparation device for improving leak tightness during the preparation of the beverage” are seen to be recitations regarding the intended use of the “capsule.” In this regard, applicant’s attention is invited to MPEP § 2114.I. and MPEP § 2114.II. which states features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally in view of In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997). If an examiner concludes that a functional limitation is an inherent characteristic of the prior art, then to establish a prima facie case of anticipation or obviousness, the examiner should explain that the prior art structure inherently possess the functionally defined limitations of the claimed apparatus in view of In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432. See also Bettcher Industries, Inc. v. Bunzl USA, Inc., 661 F.3d 629, 639-40,100 USPQ2d 1433, 1440 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The burden then shifts to applicant to establish that the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on in view of In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432; In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213, 169 USPQ 226, 228 (CCPA 1971). Additionally, apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does in view of Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claimed in view of Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Furthermore, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Nevertheless, Bosetti et al. discloses the capsule being used to prepare a beverage in a beverage preparation device (‘731, Paragraph [0002]), the cover closing the cup shaped body and sealing thereon (‘731, Paragraph [0022]), , and the at least a protruding part cooperating with an edge of a capsule enclosing member of the beverage preparation device (‘731, FIG. 2A) (‘731, Paragraph [0060]).
PNG
media_image2.png
886
1580
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 4, Bosetti et al. discloses at least a protruding part (connecting portion 2b) having a greater thickness than the maximum thickness of the lateral wall (main portion 2a) (‘731, FIG. 1B) (‘731, Paragraph [0056]).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bosetti et al. US 2021/0107731 in view of Orler US 2020/0253413 (cited on Information Disclosure Statement filed October 1, 2025) as applied to claim 1 above in further view of Yoakim et al. US 2011/0041702 (herein referred to as “Yoakim et al. ‘702) and Yoakim et al. US 2006/0110507 (herein referred to as “Yoakim et al. ‘507”).
Regarding Claim 2, Orler discloses the cup shaped body (cartridge body 200) comprising a cellulose pulp (‘413, Paragraph [0044]). However, Bosetti et al. modified with Orler is silent regarding the protruding part being integral with both the lateral wall and the annular flange of the capsule.
Yoakim et al. ‘702 discloses a capsule comprising a cup shaped body comprising an annular flange (rim) comprising a sealing means forming at least one integral protrusion or lip extending form the annular flange (rim) or which an added seal element such as soft plastic, foam or fibers is added which sealing means is integral with the body of the capsule, i.e. made of the same biodegradable material (‘702, Paragraph [0043]) wherein the body is made of polymer material or cellulose based material of paper or cardboard or natural fibers (‘702, Paragraph [0055]).
Yoakim et al. ‘507 discloses a capsule (capsule 1) comprising a cup shaped body (cup like base body 4) and a cover (foil member 5) for closing the cup shaped body (cup like base body 4) wherein the cup shaped body (cup like base body 4) comprises a bottom wall (top wall 17), a lateral wall (sidewall 7), and an annular flange (flange like rim 6) for the cover (foil member 5) to seal thereon wherein the lateral wall (sidewall 7) and the annular flange (flange like rim 6) is connected by a connecting wall (sealing member 8) of the cup shaped body (cup like base body 4) (‘507, Paragraph [0066]) wherein the connecting wall (sealing member 8) comprises at least a part protruding outward with respect to the lateral wall (sidewall 7), the at least a protruding part cooperates with an edge (circumferential wall 25) of a capsule enclosing member (enclosing member 9) of a beverage preparation device (‘507, Paragraph [0058]) wherein the protruding part is integral with both the lateral wall (sidewall 7) and the annular flange (flange like rim 6) of the capsule (capsule 1) (‘507, FIGS. 6-7) (‘507, Paragraphs [0068]-[0069]) wherein the protruding part is made with the same material as the capsule (‘507, Paragraph [0073]).
PNG
media_image3.png
1003
940
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Modified Bosetti et al., Yoakim et al. ‘702, and Yoakim et al. ‘507 are all directed towards the same field of endeavor of beverage capsules. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the protruding part of the connecting wall that connects to the lateral wall and construct the protruding part to be integral with both the lateral wall and the annular flange as taught by Yoakim et al. ‘702 and Yoakim et al. ‘507 since the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in the prior art would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice in view of In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965) (MPEP § 2144.04.V.C.). Yoakim et al. ‘702 and Yoakim et al. ‘507 teaches that there was known utility in the beverage capsule art to integrally construct protruding parts with the lateral wall and the annular flange.
Claims 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bosetti et al. US 2021/0107731 in view of Orler US 2020/0253413 (cited on Information Disclosure Statement filed October 1, 2025) as applied to claim 1 above in further view of Yoakim et al. US 2006/0110507.
Regarding Claim 3, Bosetti et al. discloses the protruding part of the connecting wall (connecting portion 2b) being deformable (‘731, Paragraph [0060]) and to be capable of flexing (‘731, Paragraph [0064]). However, Bosetti et al. modified with Orler is silent regarding the density of the at least a protruding part of the connecting wall being less than the maximum density of the lateral wall.
Yoakim et al. discloses a capsule (capsule 1) comprising a cup shaped body (cup like base body 4) and a cover (foil member 5) for closing the cup shaped body (cup like base body 4) wherein the cup shaped body (cup like base body 4) comprises a bottom wall (top wall 17), a lateral wall (sidewall 7), and an annular flange (flange like rim 6) for the cover (foil member 5) to seal thereon wherein the lateral wall (sidewall 7) and the annular flange (flange like rim 6) is connected by a connecting wall (sealing member 8) of the cup shaped body (cup like base body 4) (‘507, Paragraph [0066]) wherein the connecting wall (sealing member 8) comprises at least a part protruding outward with respect to the lateral wall (sidewall 7), the at least a protruding part cooperates with an edge (circumferential wall 25) of a capsule enclosing member (enclosing member 9) of a beverage preparation device (‘507, Paragraph [0058]) wherein the protruding part is integral with both the lateral wall (sidewall 7) and the annular flange (flange like rim 6) of the capsule (capsule 1) (‘507, FIGS. 6-7) (‘507, Paragraphs [0068]-[0069]) wherein the protruding part is made with the same material as the capsule (‘507, Paragraph [0073]) and the connecting wall (sealing member) has a sudden increase of the diameter of the lateral wall (sidewall 7) (‘507, FIG. 11) (‘507,. Paragraph [0091]) wherein the protruding part (sealing member 8) can have other shapes such as a film applied to the capsule or an O-ring (‘507, Paragraph [0087]). Yoakim et al. further discloses the protruding part of the connecting wall (sealing member 8) being more resilient than the material of the lateral wall base body (‘507, Paragraph [0085]), which indicates that the more resilient connecting wall material is less dense than that of the capsule body. Applicant discloses the density of the protruding part being less than the maximum density of the lateral wall so as to increase the deformability of the protruding part and improve the leak tightness during preparation of the beverage (Specification, Page 3, lines 11-15).
Both modified Bosetti et al. and Yoakim et al. are directed towards the same field of endeavor of beverage capsules. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the beverage capsule of modified Bosetti et al. and construct the protruding part to have less density, i.e. be more resilient and have a lower hardness, than that of the maximum density of the lateral wall as taught by Yoakim et al. in order to allow the connecting wall to sufficiently deform under closure forces applied by the capsule enclosing member of the beverage preparation device (‘507, Paragraph [0091]).
Regarding Claim 6, Bosetti et al. modified with Orler and Yoakim et al. is silent regarding the difference between the maximum density D1 of the lateral wall of the cup shaped body and the density D2 of the protruding part of the connecting wall comprising a value between 0.1% of D1 and 20% of D1, i.e. 1%D1 ≤(D1-D2)≤ 20%D1. However, differences in the relative densities between that of the lateral wall and the protruding part of the connecting wall will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such difference between the maximum density D1 of the lateral wall of the cup shaped body and the density D2 of the protruding part of the connecting wall is critical. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation in view of In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP § 2144.05.II.A.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the beverage capsule of modified Bosetti et al. and construct the protruding part to have less density, i.e. be more resilient and have a lower hardness, than that of the maximum density of the lateral wall as taught by Yoakim et al. in order to allow the connecting wall to sufficiently deform under closure forces applied by the capsule enclosing member of the beverage preparation device (‘507, Paragraph [0091]).
Claims 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bosetti et al. US 2021/0107731 in view of Orler US 2020/0253413 (cited on Information Disclosure Statement filed October 1, 2025) as applied to claim 1 above in further view of Doglioni Majer US 2015/0208852.
Regarding Claim 5, Bosetti et al. modified with Orler is silent regarding the at least a protruding part of the connecting wall having a round shape.
Doglioni Majer discloses a capsule comprising a cup shaped body and a cover for closing the cup shaped body wherein the cup shaped body comprises a bottom wall, a lateral wall (lateral wall 2), and an annular flange (flange like rim 4) of the cover to seal thereon wherein the lateral wall and the annular flange (flange like rim 4) are connected by a connecting wall (plurality of ridges or protruding elements 24) of the cup shaped body wherein the connecting wall (plurality of ridges or protruding elements 24) comprises at least a part protruding outward with respect to the lateral wall (lateral wall 2) (‘852, FIG. 10) (‘852, Paragraph [0103]) wherein at least a protruding part cooperates with an edge (pressing edge 10) of a capsule enclosing member of a beverage preparation device (‘852, FIG. 3) wherein the protruding part (plurality of ridges or protruding elements 24) is integral with both the lateral wall (lateral wall 2) and the annular flange (flange like rim 4) of the capsule (‘852, Paragraph [0018]) wherein the protruding part (plurality of ridges or protruding elements 24) has a round/elliptical shape, i.e. a shape corresponding to that of the edge (pressing edge 10) of the capsule enclosing member of the beverage preparation device and to adapt to the indentations of the edge (pressing edge 10) of the capsule enclosing member of the beverage preparation device (‘852, Paragraph [0103]).
PNG
media_image4.png
871
1415
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Both modified Bosseti et al. and Doglioni Majer are directed towards the same field of endeavor of beverage capsules used in a beverage preparation device to make a beverage. Both beverage capsules of modified Bosseti et al. and Doglioni Majer contain a cup shaped body having a connecting wall protruding outward with respect to a lateral wall. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the beverage capsule of modified Bosseti et al. and construct the protruding part of the connecting wall to have a round shape as taught by Doglioni Majer in order to adapt to the indentations of the edge of the capsule enclosing member of the beverage preparation device (‘852, Paragraph [0103]). Furthermore, the configuration of the claimed protruding part of the connecting wall is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed protruding part of the connecting wall was significant in view of In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (MPEP § 2144.04.IV.B.). Doglioni Majer teaches that there was known utility in the beverage capsule art to construct the connecting wall with a protruding part having a rounded shape.
Regarding Claim 8, Doglioni Majer discloses at least the protruding part of the connecting wall (plurality of ridges or protruding elements 24) having a rounded shape externally and a flat shape inclined with respect to a longitudinal axis of the cup shaped body internally (‘852, FIG. 10) (‘852, Paragraph [0103]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the beverage capsule of modified Bosseti et al. and construct the protruding part of the connecting wall to have a round shape externally as taught by Doglioni Majer in order to adapt to the indentations of the edge of the capsule enclosing member of the beverage preparation device (‘852, Paragraph [0103]). Furthermore, the configuration of the claimed protruding part of the connecting wall is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed protruding part of the connecting wall was significant in view of In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (MPEP § 2144.04.IV.B.). Doglioni Majer teaches that there was known utility in the beverage capsule art to construct the connecting wall with a protruding part having a rounded shape externally and a flat shape inclined with respect to a longitudinal axis of the cup shaped body internally.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bosetti et al. US 2021/0107731 in view of Orler US 2020/0253413 (cited on Information Disclosure Statement filed October 1, 2025) as applied to claim 1 above in further view of Doglioni Majer US 2015/0208852 and Mariller US 2011/0297005.
Regarding Claim 7, Bosetti et al. modified with Orler is silent regarding the inner surface being inclined in a direction seen in longitudinal section forming an angle with the direction of inclination of the lateral wall of the cup shaped body which angle is between 100° and 150°.
Doglioni Majer discloses a capsule comprising a cup shaped body and a cover for closing the cup shaped body wherein the cup shaped body comprises a bottom wall, a lateral wall (lateral wall 2), and an annular flange (flange like rim 4) of the cover to seal thereon wherein the lateral wall and the annular flange (flange like rim 4) are connected by a connecting wall (plurality of ridges or protruding elements 24) of the cup shaped body wherein the connecting wall (plurality of ridges or protruding elements 24) comprises at least a part protruding outward with respect to the lateral wall (lateral wall 2) (‘852, FIG. 10) (‘852, Paragraph [0103]) wherein at least a protruding part cooperates with an edge (pressing edge 10) of a capsule enclosing member of a beverage preparation device (‘852, FIG. 3) wherein the protruding part (plurality of ridges or protruding elements 24) is integral with both the lateral wall (lateral wall 2) and the annular flange (flange like rim 4) of the capsule (‘852, Paragraph [0018]) wherein the protruding part (plurality of ridges or protruding elements 24) has a round/elliptical shape, i.e. a shape corresponding to that of the edge (pressing edge 10) of the capsule enclosing member of the beverage preparation device and to adapt to the indentations of the edge (pressing edge 10) of the capsule enclosing member of the beverage preparation device (‘852, Paragraph [0103]).
Mariller discloses a capsule (capsule 1b) comprising a cup shaped body and a cover for closing the cup shaped body wherein the cup shaped body comprises a bottom wall, a lateral wall (sidewall 2b), and an annular flange (rim 3b) for the cover to seal thereon wherein the lateral wall (sidewall 2b) and the annular flange (rim 3b) are connected by a connecting wall (gutter 4b) of the cup shaped body wherein the connecting wall (gutter 4b) comprises at least a part protruding outward with respect to the lateral wall and at least a protruding part cooperating with an edge of a capsule enclosing member (5b) of a beverage preparation device (‘005, FIG. 1B) (‘005, Paragraphs [0085]-[0093]) wherein one or more extra thicknesses placed in the bottom portion of the sidewall is used to make it easier to center the capsule in the capsule cage (‘005, Paragraph [0019]) wherein the protruding part is integral with the lateral wall and the annular flange (‘005, Paragraph [0031]).
PNG
media_image5.png
656
944
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Modified Bosetti et al., Doglioni Majer, and Mariller are all directed towards the same field of endeavor of beverage capsules used in beverage preparation devices to make a beverage. Although Doglioni Majer and Mariller does not teach the claimed angle of inclination with respect to the lateral wall of between 100° and 150°, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to adjust the inner surface of the connecting wall of the beverage capsule of modified Bosetti et al. to the claimed angle of inclination relative to the lateral wall since Doglioni Majer teaches adapting to the indentations of the edge (pressing edge 10) of the capsule enclosing member of the beverage preparation device (‘852, Paragraph [0103]) and since Mariller teaches one or more extra thicknesses placed in the bottom portion of the sidewall is used to make it easier to center the capsule in the capsule cage (‘005, Paragraph [0019]). This would be done irrespective of the particular angle of inclination of the inner surface of the connecting wall relative to the lateral wall. Differences in the angle of inclination of the inner surface of the connecting wall relative to the lateral wall will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such angle of inclination of the inner surface of the connecting wall relative to the lateral wall is critical. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation in view of In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP § 2144.05.II.A.).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bosetti et al. US 2021/0107731 in view of Orler US 2020/0253413 (cited on Information Disclosure Statement filed October 1, 2025) as applied to claim 1 above in further view of Knack US 2015/0203607 and Marcinkowski US 2017/0355515.
Regarding Claim 9, Orler discloses the cup shaped body (cartridge body 200) being made of cellulose pulp comprising cellulose fibers (‘413, Paragraph [0044]). Orler also discloses an oxygen barrier liner (liner 700) attached at the inner surface of the cup shaped body (cartridge body 200) (‘413, FIG. 7) (‘413, Paragraph [0075]) made of cellulose pulp (‘413, Paragraph [0044]). The oxygen barrier liner (liner 904) is made of a home compostable polymer (‘413, Paragraphs [0081]-[0082] and [0100]).
However, Bosetti et al. modified with Orler is silent regarding the cellulose fibers being in a percentage ranging from 80% to 100% by weight.
Knack discloses a capsule (coffee pad) containing a crosslinked polyethylene fiber or a mixture of polymer fibers or heat sealable filter paper (‘243, Paragraph [0044]) wherein the heat sealable filter paper contains natural fibers derived from cellulose in a weight percentage of from about 60% to about 85% and synthetic fibers derived from wood pulp in an amount of 15% to 40% (‘607, Paragraph [0041]), which overlaps the claimed cellulose fibers in a percentage ranging from 80% to 100%.
Both modified Bosetti et al. and Knack are directed towards the same field of endeavor of beverage capsules. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the beverage capsule of modified Bosetti et al. and incorporate cellulose fibers in the claimed percentage as taught by Knack since where the claimed cellulose fiber concentration ranges overlaps cellulose fiber concentration ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists in view of In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (MPEP § 2144.05.I.).
Further regarding Claim 9, Orler also discloses an oxygen barrier liner (liner 700) attached at the inner surface of the cup shaped body (cartridge body 200) (‘413, FIG. 7) (‘413, Paragraph [0075]) made of cellulose pulp (‘413, Paragraph [0044]). The oxygen barrier liner (liner 904) is made of a home compostable polymer (‘413, Paragraphs [0081]-[0082] and [0100]). However, Bosetti et al. modified with Orler and Knack is silent regarding the oxygen barrier liner being made of a polymer.
Marcinkowski discloses a capsule comprising a cup shaped body (cup 12) made of compostable cellulose fiber (‘515, Paragraph [0017]) and a liner including a polymer material and/or compostable polymers or paper made from a material impervious to moisture and gases (‘515, Paragraph [0025]).
Both modified Bosetti et al. and Marcinkowski are directed towards the same field of endeavor of beverage capsules. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the beverage capsule of modified Bosetti et al. and construct the oxygen barrier liner out of a compostable polymer as taught by Marcinkowski since the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination in view of Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (MPEP § 2144.07). Marcinkowski teaches that there was known utility in the beverage capsule art to construct a liner of the beverage capsule out of a compostable polymer.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bosetti et al. US 2021/0107731 in view of Orler US 2020/0253413 (cited on Information Disclosure Statement filed October 1, 2025) as applied to claim 1 above as further evidenced by Okamoto et al. US 2017/0107034.
Regarding Claim 10, the limitations “wherein said capsule is a single use coffee capsule” are intended use limitations and as such are rejected for the same reasons regarding intended use enumerated in the rejections of Claim 1 provided above. Nevertheless, Bosetti et al. discloses the capsule being made entirely of compostable materials (‘731, Paragraph [0036]) wherein the capsule is a coffee capsule (‘731, Paragraphs [0009] and [0043]). Okamoto et al. provides evidence that it was known in the food and beverage container art that coffee capsules (container cup 60 of single use coffee pods) (‘034, Paragraph [0064]) made from compostable paper (‘034, Paragraph [0063]) are capable of being single use coffee capsules (‘034, Paragraph [0064]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nordqvist et al. US 2017/0174417 discloses a capsule comprising a body made of a paper based sheet comprising at least one thermoformable polymer layer oriented towards the cavity (‘417, Paragraph [0041]) wherein paper refers to pulp of cellulose or equivalent natural fibers (‘417, Paragraph [0038]).
Chen et al. US 2019/0062998 discloses a beverage capsule comprising a cup shaped body (capsule main body CMB) made of pulp fiber and/or nanofibrillated cellulose (NFC) (‘998, Paragraph [0007]).
Kanter Eivin US 2017/0247837 discloses a laminate used to form a liquid containment vessel having a first layer made of a sunflower paper cardstock and a second layer made of a thermoplastic aliphatic polyester applied to the sunflower paper cardstock (‘837, Paragraph [0007]) wherein the second layer is a water retaining coating or water barrier coating suitable for serving coffee beverages at a temperature of 173-178°C (‘837, Paragraph [0026]).
Cabilli US 2015/0336736 discloses a capsule comprising a cup shaped body (casing 14) made of compostable cellulose materials (‘736, Paragraphs [0107]-[0113]).
Bosetti et al. US 2020/0377291 discloses a capsule (capsule 1) comprising a cup shaped body (container body 2) made of biodegradable cellulose (‘291, Paragraph [0037]) and comprises a bottom wall (lower base 3), a lateral wall (sidewall 4), and an annular flange (annular edge 501) for a cover (first compostable barrier lid 50) to seal thereon wherein the lateral wall (sidewall 4) and the annular flange (annular edge 501) are connected by a connecting wall of the cup shaped body (container body 2) wherein the connecting wall comprises at least a part protruding outward with respect to the lateral wall (sidewall 4) (‘291, FIGS. 2-3) (‘291, Paragraphs [0043]-[0046]).
Held US 2020/0231375 discloses a capsule (capsule 100) comprising a cup shaped body and a cover (foil 101) for closing the cup shaped body wherein the cup shaped body comprises a bottom wall, a lateral wall (sidewall 2), and an annular flange (flange 6) for the cover (foil 101) to seal thereon (‘375, Paragraph [0111]) wherein the lateral wall (sidewall 2) and the annular flange (flange 6) are connected by a connecting wall (stacking notches 9) of the cup shaped body wherein the connecting wall (stacking notches 9) comprises at least a part protruding outward with respect to the lateral wall (sidewall 2) wherein at least a protruding part cooperates with an edge of a capsule enclosing member of the beverage preparation device (brewing chamber 201) (‘375, FIG. 3B) (‘375, Paragraph [0115]) wherein the flange is integrally formed with the lateral wall (sidewall) (‘375,. Paragraph [0013]).
Kaeser et al. US 2011/0259204 discloses a capsule (capsule 1) comprising a cup shaped body (frustoconical body portion 3) and a cover for closing the cup shaped body (frustoconical body portion 3) wherein the cup shaped body (frustoconical body portion 3) comprises a bottom wall, a lateral wall (sidewall 3a), and an annular flange (rim portion 2) for the cover to seal thereon (‘204, Paragraph [0068]) wherein the lateral wall (sidewall 3a) and the annular flange (rim portion 2) are connected by a connecting wall (sealing means 4) of the cup shaped body wherein the connecting wall (sealing means 4) comprises at least a part protruding outward with respect to the lateral wall (‘204, FIG. 5C) (‘204, Paragraph [0080]) wherein at least a protruding part cooperates with an edge of a capsule enclosing member of a beverage preparation device (‘204, FIG. 7) (‘204, Paragraph [0115]).
PNG
media_image6.png
746
1271
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Orler US 2018/0297760 discloses a capsule comprising a second cellulose based material having a different density than the first cellulose based material.
Gualandi et al. US 2017/0334623 discloses a capsule comprising a main body made of cellulose pulp having a density of between 600-650 kg/m3 (‘623, Paragraph [0090]).
Gort-Barten US 2020/0385204 discloses a capsule comprising a cup shaped body comprising an annular flange comprising a ring formed from a cellulose material or paper which ring deforms plastically in use when engaged by a capsule cage of a coffee machine (‘204, Paragraph [0011]).
Brivois US 2022/0348402 discloses a capsule comprising a cup shaped body and a cover wherein the cup shaped body comprises a bottom wall, a lateral wall, and an annular flange for the cover to seal thereon wherein the lateral wall and the annular flange are connected by a connecting wall (sealing ring 10) of the cup shaped body wherein the connecting wall (sealing ring 10) comprises at least a part protruding outward with respect to the lateral wall wherein at least a protruding part cooperates with an edge of a capsule enclosing member of a beverage preparation device wherein the protruding part (sealing ring 10) is made of biodegradable and/or compostable material (‘402, FIG. 9B) (‘402, Paragraph [0048]) wherein the connecting wall (sealing ring 10) is made of a cellulose based material such as paper having good properties in terms of liquid absorption and recycling (‘402, Paragraph [0049]).
Doglioni Majer US 2014/0234494 discloses a capsule comprising a cup shaped body comprising a lateral wall wherein the thickness of the wall is not constant, especially in the case where the capsule is obtained by thermoforming (‘494, Paragraph [0097]).
Kay US 2018/0148251 discloses a capsule (capsule 10) comprising a cup shaped body (body 12) and a cover for closing the cup shaped body (body 12) wherein the cup shaped body (body 12) comprises a bottom wall (base 14), a lateral wall (wall 40), and an annular flange (flange 16) for the cover to seal thereon (‘251, Paragraphs [0021]-[0022]) wherein the lateral wall (wall 40) and the annular flange (flange 16) is connected by a connecting wall (shoulder 42) of the cup shaped body (body 12) wherein the connecting wall (shoulder 42) comprises at least a part protruding outward with respect to the lateral wall (wall 40) (‘251, FIG. 5) wherein at least a protruding part cooperates with an edge of a capsule enclosing member (pressing sleeve PS) of a beverage preparation device (‘251, FIG. 5) (‘251, Paragraph [0031]).
PNG
media_image7.png
961
1584
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Jarisch US 2015/0225169 disclose a capsule (capsule 5) comprising a cup shaped body (cup shaped body 51) and a cover (covering membrane 52) for closing the cup shaped body (cup shaped body 51) wherein the cup shaped body (cup shaped body 51) comprises a bottom wall, a lateral wall, and an annular flange (peripheral rim 54) for the cover to seal thereon wherein the lateral wall and the annular flange (peripheral rim 54) is connected by a connecting wall (seal 54’) of the cup shaped body wherein the connecting wall (seal 54’) comprises at least a part protruding outward with respect to the lateral wall (‘169, FIGS. 3-4) (‘169, Paragraph [0031]) wherein at least a protruding part cooperates with an edge of a capsule enclosing member of a beverage preparation device and the capsule is made of a biodegradable material (‘169, Paragraph [0031]).
PNG
media_image8.png
705
1526
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Mariller US 2012/0210878 discloses a capsule (capsule 1) comprising a cup shaped body and a cover for closing the cup shaped body wherein the cup shaped body comprises a bottom wall, a lateral wall, and an annular flange (flange 3) for the cover to seal thereon wherein the lateral wall and the annular flange (flange 3) are connected by a connecting wall (sealing bulge 6) of the cup shaped body wherein the connecting wall (sealing bulge 6) comprises at least a part protruding outward with respect to the lateral wall and at least a protruding part cooperating with an edge of a capsule enclosing member (capsule cage 5) of a beverage preparation device (‘878, FIGS. 1-2) (‘878, Paragraphs [0016]-[0020]).
PNG
media_image9.png
791
842
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Da Silva et al. US 2020/0370243 discloses a kraftliner paper with a short chemical fiber composition ranging from 70% to 100% (‘243, Paragraph [0001]).
Bonacci US 2011/0186450 discloses a capsule comprising a cup shaped body comprising a lateral wall (second portion 8b) and an annular flange (flange like rim portion 8a) that is softer and of higher resilience than the lateral wall (second portion 8b) (‘450, FIG. 1A) (‘450, Paragraph [0048]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERICSON M LACHICA whose telephone number is (571)270-0278. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-5pm, EST.
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.
/ERICSON M LACHICA/Examiner, Art Unit 1792