DETAILED ACTION
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 present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, that “the height of the space is selected as a function of a weight of the beverage material” must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 14 recites “the filter disc is disposed off of an interior floor of the cavity” whilst independent claim 1, from which claim 14 depends, recites “a filter disc disposed off of an interior floor of the cavity” in line 7, therefore it is not seen that claim 14 further limits the claim from which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4 – 9, 14, 17 – 19, and 20 – 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beaulieu et al. US 2010/0303964 in view of Roberts et al. US 2017/0055761, in view of Krüger US 2022/0194690, in view of Bardet EP 4 154 964 in view of Oh US 2020/0121115.
Regarding claims 1, 14, and 20, Beaulieu discloses a beverage pod (cartridge 10) which comprises a cavity (container 12) comprised of a beverage pod shell (interior space 14) (paragraph [0032]), a filtre disc (40) disposed within the cavity ([0039]), a formed filtre material (30) adhered to an interior surface of the cavity, and a beverage (20) material within the formed filtre material (paragraph [0039]). Further, an airtight lid may seal the filtre disc, the formed filtre material, and the beverage material within the cavity (paragraph [0033]).
In the event that claim 1 can be construed as differing from Beaulieu in the lid for sealing the filtre disc, the formed filtre material, and the beverage material within the cavity as being airtight, Roberts discloses a beverage pod (receptacle 110) (paragraph [0087]) which pod has a headspace atmosphere modified (advantageously filled using a MAP gas) within the cavity and said cavity is then sealed (paragraph [0105]) with an airtight lid (hermetic seal) (paragraph [0103]). Roberts is providing an airtight lid to seal the filtre disc, the formed filtre material, and the beverage material within the cavity for the art recognized function of assisting in maintaining a MAP gas environment by sealing the headspace of a beverage pod with a modified atmosphere in order to protect the beverage material filled therein from the deleterious effects of air and/or oxygen, i.e. a reactive gas. To therefore modify Beaulieu and provide the beverage pod with an airtight lid to assist in maintaining a modified atmosphere to protect the beverage material contained therein from deterioration as taught by Roberts would have been an obvious matter of choice and/or design to the ordinarily skilled artisan.
Claim 1 differs from Beaulieu in view of Roberts in “a sidewall of the beverage pod shell comprises oval detents in a staggered pattern along the sidewall of the beverage pod shell, wherein the oval detents are configured to provide”, that is to say would be capable of providing “an interconnection between the beverage pod and a second beverage pod”.
Krüger discloses a beverage pod (cartridge 10) which comprises a cavity (container 14) comprised of a beverage pod shell (wall region 4), a beverage material (coffee) is enclosed therein, and an airtight lid (film 2) would seal the beverage material within the cavity (paragraph [0039]).
Krüger further discloses the beverage pod shell comprises oval detents (paragraph [0011] and [0030]) in a staggered pattern (according to a pattern) along the sidewall of the beverage pod shell (fig. 4). Since it appears the oval detents would be consistent from one beverage pod shell to the next it is obvious that the oval detents would be capable of providing an interconnection between the beverage pod and a second beverage pod.
Krüger is providing oval detents positioned in a staggered pattern for the art recognized function of providing a greater degree of longitudinal stability to the beverage pod (paragraph [0016]). To therefore modify Beaulieu in view of Roberts and provide a sidewall of the beverage pod shell with oval detents in a staggered pattern along the sidewall of the beverage pod shell to provide a greater degree of longitudinal stability to said beverage pod shell as taught by Krüger would have been an obvious matter of choice and/or design to the ordinarily skilled artisan.
Claim 1 differs from in the formed filtre material comprises abaca fibres.
Bardet discloses a formed filtre material that would be adhered within the cavity of a beverage pod, which formed filtre material comprises abaca fibres. Bardet teaches abaca fibres are relatively long and therefore the use of abaca fibres in the filtre material would be desired as they would provide additional mechanical strength to the filtre when used in conjunction with other cellulose nonwoven fibres and that this is especially of importance during the paper manufacturing process. To therefore modify Beaulieu in view of Roberts and Krüger and form the filtre material using abaca fibres as taught by Bardet to provide additional mechanical strength to the filtre would have been an obvious matter of choice and/or design.
Claim 1 now further recites the filtre disc is “disposed off of the interior floor of the cavity to define a space between the interior floor and an underside of the filtre disc, wherein a height of the space is selected as a function of a weight of the beverage material”.
Oh discloses a beverage pod (300) which comprises a cavity comprised of a beverage pod shell (container 304) (paragraph [0032]). A filtre disc (base of filtre 322) is disposed within the cavity, a formed filtre material (306) is placed in an interior surface of the cavity ([0104] – [0105]), a beverage material (310) is placed within the formed filtre material, and an airtight lid may seal the filtre disc, the formed filtre material, and the beverage material within the cavity (paragraph [0103]). Oh further discloses that when the beverage pod would be configured to brew a single shot of expresso 6 to 12 grams of coffee grounds would be contained therein and the filtre disc (322) would create an interior cavity (364) (paragraph [0112] and fig. 3C). Further still, Oh discloses that when the beverage pod would be configured to brew a double shot of espresso a greater weight of coffee grounds (12 to 18 grams) would be contained therein and that said cavity (364) would be enlarged by lowering the filtre disc to reduce the space between the interior floor and the underside of the filtre disc (paragraph [0113]). This is to say that Oh is disclosing the height of the space would be selected as a function of the weight of the beverage material since the height at which the filtre disc would be disposed off the interior floor of the cavity to define a space between the interior floor and the underside of the filtre disc would vary as a function of a weight of the beverage material. Oh is varying the height of the space between the interior floor and the underside of the filtre disc in order to accommodate a beverage material that requires more room within the cavity between the floor and the start of the filtre disc which is applicant’s disclosed reason for doing so as well. To therefore modify Beaulieu in view of Roberts in view of Krüger in view of Bardet and have the height of the space selected as a function of the weight of the beverage material as taught by Oh would have been an obvious matter of choice and/or design to the ordinarily skilled artisan.
Further regarding claim 20, once it was known to dispose the formed filtre material within the cavity with a clearance between the underside of the filtre and the inside bottom of the beverage pod it is not seen that patentability would be predicated on the particular clearance distance absent strong and compelling evidence to the contrary.
The mere scaling up of a prior art filtre clearance between an underside of a filtre and an inside bottom of a beverage pod capable of being scaled, if such were the case would not establish patentability in a claim to an old clearance between an underside of a filtre and an inside bottom of a beverage pod so scaled. Where the only difference between the prior art is a recitation of a relative clearance between an underside of a filtre and an inside bottom of a beverage pod and a beverage pod having the claimed relative clearance would not perform differently than the prior art coating the claimed clearance is not seen to be patentably distinct from the prior art coating (MPEP § 2144.04 IV.A.).
Regarding claim 2, Beaulieu in view of Roberts, in view of Krüger in view of Bardet in view of Oh discloses the beverage pod shell would be comprised of aluminum material in order to ensure the beverage pod would be recyclable making it an obvious matter of choice and/or design to the ordinarily skilled artisan to have formed the shell from aluminium (‘761, paragraph [0174]).
Regarding claims 4, 17, and 18, Beaulieu in view of Roberts in view of Krüger in view of Bardet in view of Oh discloses the cavity of the beverage pod would have a polymeric coating (polypropylene) on an interior surface of the beverage pod shell to enhance food safety, eliminate chemical reactions between the aluminium and the beverage material contained therein and/or to provide a welding surface for the heat sealed lid and it therefore would have been obvious to have provided a polymeric coating to the cavity of the beverage pod of Beaulieu in view of Roberts in view of Krüger in view of Bardet in view of Oh as taught by Roberts (‘761, paragraph [0243]).
Further regarding claim 18, the limitation “wherein the coating comprises a co-extruded polypropylene” is a method limitation and does not determine the patentability of the product, unless the process produces unexpected results. The method of forming the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself, unless Applicant presents evidence from which the Examiner could reasonably conclude that the claimed product differs in kind from those of the prior art. MPEP 2113. Furthermore, there does not appear to be a difference between the prior art structure and the structure resulting from the claimed method because Beaulieu in view of Roberts in view of Krüger in view of Bardet in view of Oh discloses the polymeric coating on the interior shell of the cavity of the beverage pod comprises polypropylene.
Regarding claim 5, Beaulieu in view of Roberts in view of Krüger in view of Bardet in view of Oh clearly discloses there would be a headspace between the beverage material and the airtight lid (‘394, fig. 1, reference sign 14a).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Beaulieu in view of Roberts in view of Krüger in view of Bardet in view of Oh discloses the headspace of the cavity of the beverage pod would be filled with nitrogen, which is an inert gas disposed and sealed within the cavity (‘761, paragraph [0105]).
Regarding claim 8, Beaulieu in view of Roberts in view of Krüger in view of Bardet in view of Oh discloses that oxygen would be chemically reactive to any beverage material that would be within the formed filtre material and that in order to prevent any oxygen from reacting with said beverage material the cavity of the beverage pod would be filled with a MAP gas, to prevent any oxygen from reacting with the beverage material that would be contained in the beverage pod (‘761, paragraph [0105]). Once it was known to fill the beverage pod with a MAP gas it is not seen that patentability would be predicated on the exact percentage of oxygen level in said pod. Stated somewhat differently, Beaulieu in view of Roberts in view of Krüger in view of Bardet in view of Oh is disclosing the oxygen level within the headspace of the beverage pod would be a result effective variable which the ordinarily skilled artisan would commonly and routinely optimize to protect the beverage material therein. Generally, differences in concentration will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration 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. The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages. It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions (MPEP § 2144.05 II.A.).
Regarding claim 9, Beaulieu in view of Roberts in view of Krüger in view of Bardet in view of Oh disclose the airtight lid would be an aluminium foil material (‘761, paragraph [0242]) having a polymeric coating (polypropylene) to provide a welding surface for heat sealing the lid to said pod and it therefore would have been obvious an obvious matter of choice and/or design to have provided a polymeric coating to said foil material of the lid of the beverage pod of Beaulieu in view of Roberts in view of Krüger in view of Bardet in view of Oh to seal the lid to the pod as taught by Roberts (‘761, paragraph [0243]).
Regarding claim 19, once it was known to provide the cavity with a polymeric coating of polypropylene on an interior surface of the shell of the beverage pod (thin layer of polypropylene) (‘761, paragraph [0243]) it is not seen that patentability would be predicated on the specific thickness of the coating. The mere scaling up of a prior art coating capable of being scaled, if such were the case would not establish patentability in a claim to an old coating so scaled. Where the only difference between the prior art, in this case the coating of Beaulieu in view of Roberts in view of Krüger in view of Bardet in view of Oh, is a recitation of a relative thickness of the claimed coating on an interior surface of a shell and a coating having the claimed relative thickness would not perform differently than the prior art coating the claimed coating is not seen to be patentably distinct from the prior art coating (MPEP § 2144.04 IV.A.).
Regarding claims 21 and 22, Bardet discloses the formed filtre material would comprise abaca fibres blended with non-woven cellulose fibres (softwood, hardwood) and non-woven polymeric fibres (Lyocell, Rayon) to form the filtre material (‘964, paragraph [0028] – [0037]). Bardet is forming the filtre from non-woven abaca, other non-woven cellulose fibres, and non-woven polymeric fibres to produce a filtre material that would be fully home compostable (‘964, paragraph [0024]) making it obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan to have formed the filtre material therefrom.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beaulieu et al. US 2010/030964 in view of Roberts et al. US 2017/0055761 in view of Krüger US 2022/0194690 in view of Bardet EP 4 154 964 in view of Oh US 2020/0121115 in view of Krüger US 2022/0194690 as further evidenced by Cvacho US 3,664,172, Clayton et al. US 2012/0315412, and Golding US 2013/0032602.
Regarding claim 3, Beaulieu in view of Roberts in view of Krüger in view of Bardet in view of Oh disclose the beverage pod shell would be comprised of aluminum material (‘761, paragraph [0128]). Once it was known to make the beverage pod shell from an aluminium material it is not seen that patentability would be predicated on the particular aluminium material, such as an aluminum alloy material, that the beverage pod shell would be made from absent strong and compelling evidence to the contrary. The substitution of one known aluminium material for another known aluminium material would have been obvious (MPEP § 2143I.B.). Cvacho (3004-H19 aluminium alloy) (col. 8, ln 17 – 18), Clayton (alloy 3004-H19, alloy 5182-H48) (paragraph [0013] – [0014]), and Golding (3004-H19 aluminium alloy) (paragraph [0013]) all provide further evidence that it was common, conventional, and well established in the art to employ aluminium alloys to comprise beverage pod shells.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beaulieu et al. US 2010030964 in view of Roberts et al. US 2017/0055761 in view of Krüger US 2022/0194690 in view of Bardet EP 4 154 964 in view of Oh US 2020/0121115 as further evidenced by Gatewood et al. US 2017/0283163.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Beaulieu in view of Roberts in view of Krüger in view of Bardet in view of Oh disclose the airtight lid would have a tab (pull tab on a lid) capable of enabling a user to grasp said tab and to allow the airtight lid to be peeled from the beverage pod lid (‘761, paragraph [0103]).
Roberts is providing a removable, i.e., a peelable lid, so that the interior of the beverage pod and the beverage material contained therein can be accessed which is applicant’s reason for doing so as well. To therefore modify Beaulieu in view Roberts in view of Krüger in view of Bardet in view of Oh and provide a peelable lid as taught by Roberts would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan.
Gatewood provides further evidence that it was common and conventional in the art to manufacture beverage pods with an aluminium peelable lid (tab 58) (‘163, paragraph [0008], [0039]).
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beaulieu et al. US 2010030964 in view of Roberts et al. US 2017/0055761 in view of Krüger US 2022/0194690 in view of Bardet EP 4 154 964 in view of Oh US 2020/0121115 in view of Husband et al. US 2014/0178538 as further evidenced by Rossomando et al. US 2017/0081096 and Wicks et al. US 2019/0002192.
Claims 12 and 13 differ from Beaulieu in view of Roberts in view of Krüger in view of Bardet in view of Oh in an exterior surface of the cavity comprises at least one twist groove capable of allowing a plurality of beverage pods to be stacked.
Husband discloses a beverage pod (cartridge 10) having a cavity (cup 12/82), a filtre (28) is placed into the cavity of the beverage pod (fig. 1), a beverage material (coffee grounds) is within the filtre (paragraph [0015]), and the cavity is sealed with an airtight lid (paragraph [0016]). Husband further discloses an exterior surface of the cavity would comprise at least one twist groove (helical portion 42) on an exterior surface the beverage pod (paragraph [0023]) which would allow the cavity having an interior surface to be stackable thus saving storage space during production of the beverage pods (paragraph [0037]). Husband is providing an exterior surface of the cavity with at least one twist groove for the art recognized function of allowing a plurality of beverage pods to be stacked to save space during the production of the beverage pods which is applicant’s reason for doing so as well. To therefore modify Beaulieu in view of Roberts in view of Krüger in view of Bardet in view of Oh and provide an exterior surface of the cavity with at least one twist groove on an exterior surface of the beverage pod as taught by Husband to allow a plurality of beverage pods to be stacked would have been an obvious matter of choice and/or design for the ordinarily skilled artisan. Rossomando (paragraph [0021], fig. 1) and Wicks (paragraph [0080] – 0082], and fig. 5 and 6) both provide further evidence that it was conventional and well established in the art to provide an exterior surface of the cavity of a beverage pod with at least one twist groove that would allow a plurality of a beverage pods to be stacked.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAIM A SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-7369. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 09:00-18:00.
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 please telephone the Examiner.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nikki Dees can be reached at (571) 270-3435. 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.
/C.S./
Chaim SmithExaminer, Art Unit 1791 26 March 2026
/VIREN A THAKUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792