Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of claims 1-6 in the reply filed on 12/12/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
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 2-6 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.
Claim 2 at line 11 recites the limitation “a translation movement, in particular a substantially linear translation movement. The phrase “in particular” renders this claim indefinite, since it makes unclear whether at translation movement must be linear in order to anticipate this limitation.
Claim 3 at line 6 recites the limitation “at least one between the bottom wall and/or the head wall being substantially inclined, in particular substantially orthogonal, with respect to the maximal extension direction. The phrase “in particular” renders this claim indefinite, since it makes unclear whether a bottom and/or head wall of a capsule must be substantially orthogonal with respect to a maximal extension direction to anticipate this limitation.
Claim 4 at line 1 recites the limitation “an elastic element configured for keeping the seal in said first position in a rest configuration, in particular configured for exerting a force on the seal such as to for the keeping of said first position by withstanding the movement of the seal from said first position to said second position. Claim 4 at line 5 recites the limitation “wherein the elastic element comprises at least as spring having a portion, in particular and end, fixed to said seal”. In both cases “in particular” renders this claim indefinite, since it makes unclear whether the limitation after “in particular” is required to anticipated the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “wherein the elastic element is interposed between the bottom portion and the seal; preferably wherein said elastic element is configured for being compressed when the capsule passes from said closed operating configuration to an open operating configuration. The word “preferably” renders this claim indefinite, since it makes unclear whether the limitation after “preferably” is required to anticipate the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “wherein said seal is realized in a flexible material, in particular a polymeric material; said polymeric material comprising optionally silicone, and/or wherein the body of the capsule for beverages comprises at least a portion demountable for allowing an operating access to said cavity; said demountable portion being optionally said bottom portion.” The phrase “in particular”, and both instances of the word “optionally” render this claim indefinite, since they make unclear whether the limitations which are after “in particular” or “optionally” are required for the anticipation of the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent 5,413,230 (Folter).
In Re claim 1 Folter discloses a capsule for beverages (1), comprising a body having a head portion (portion containing bore 2) and a bottom portion (inherent in the capsules ability to contain gas) and suitable for defining a cavity configured for containing, in use, a fluid and/or a gas (gas at Column 1, line 6); said capsule for beverages comprising an orifice (bore 2) configured for allowing the release of said fluid and/or gas from the cavity; said capsule for beverages comprising a seal (valve body 7) movable between at least a first position (closed position shown in Figure 1) suitable for determining a closing of the orifice configuring the capsule for beverages in a closed or sealed operating configuration wherein the cavity is insulated, and a second position suitable (shown in Figure 2) for determining an opening of the orifice configuring the capsule for beverages in an open operating configuration wherein the cavity is accessible from the outside of the capsule for beverages; the capsule for beverages being configured for remaining, in rest conditions, in said closed operating configuration keeping the seal in said first position (valve body is held in closed position in rest conditions by spring 17 as shown in Figure 1).
In Re claim 2 Folter discloses a capsule configured for allowing the movement of the seal from said first position to said second position and/or for switching between said closed operating configuration and said open operating configuration by means of an external force (force applied by tappet 28, Column 5, lines 24-28); wherein the seal is positioned within said cavity in substantial correspondence of the orifice (valve body 7 shown in correspondence with bore 2 in Figure 1), wherein the body of the capsule for beverages comprises a striking wall for said seal (bottom surface of O-ring 6); said striking wall surrounding the orifice; in said first position the seal being in contact with said striking wall; wherein in said closed configuration the cavity is pressurized and/or wherein the seal is configured for moving between said first position and said second position through a linear translation movement (valve body 7 in contact with striking surface shown in Figure 1, linear translation between first and second positions shown in Figures 1 and 2).
In Re claim 3 Folter discloses a capsule showing substantially axial development along a maximal extension direction , and wherein the bottom portion is opposed with respect to the head portion along said maximal extension direction, the bottom portion comprising at least a bottom wall (inherent in the closed nature of capsule 1) and the head portion comprising at least a head wall (shown in Figure 1 containing bore 2), at least one between the bottom wall and/or the head wall being substantially inclined, with respect to the maximal extension direction; the orifice being positioned in substantial correspondence of the head portion, said head portion detecting an end portion of said cavity having tapered cross section with respect to a central portion of said cavity, and wherein the seal shows a lower cross section with respect to the cross section of said head portion (shape of container 1 shown in Figure 1 including tapered cross section of said head portion and lower cross section of said seal 7 with respect to cross section of said head portion).
In Re claim 4 Folter discloses a capsule comprising an elastic element (spring 17) configured for keeping the seal in said first position in a rest configuration by exerting a force on the seal such as to force the keeping of said first position by withstanding the movement of the seal from said first position to said second position, wherein the elastic element comprises at least a spring having a portion, in particular and end, fixed to said seal (spring 17 relationship to valve body 7 shown in Figure 1).
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.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Folter in view of US Patent 7,185,674 (Taylor)
In Re claim 6 Folter discloses many limitations, but doesn’t disclose a capsule wherein said seal is realized in a flexible material, and wherein the body of the capsule for beverages comprises at least a portion demountable for allowing an operating access to said cavity (valve portion is distinct from container wall and could be demounted).
Taylor discloses a capsule for pressurized gas comprising a portion demountable (valve casing which can be unscrewed shown in Figure 5) for allowing an operating access to a cavity.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the Folter apparatus by making a portion of the capsule demountable to provide operating access to the cavity, in order to permit a user to access the cavity to service the capsule.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Patent 6,378,570 discloses a pressurized gas capsule having a sealing element which is translated laterally to open the capsule.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON KAROL NIESZ whose telephone number is (571)270-3920. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 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, Craig Schneider can be reached at 571 272 3607. 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.
/JASON K NIESZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753