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 .
Response to Amendment
Those rejections not repeated in this Office Action have been withdrawn.
Claims 1-5, 8-20 are currently pending and rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-5 and 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites that “the formed filter material is adhered to the interior surface of the second chamber by a circumferential adhesive bond located at a lower portion of the interior surface of the second chamber,” (lines 12-14) and “wherein the circumferential adhesive bond spans a full inner circumference of the second chamber such that the filter disc forms a sealed lower boundary within the second chamber,” (lines 14-16) and “wherein the filter disc and the second chamber form a unitary subassembly configured to be inserted into and removed from the first chamber as a single unit” (lines 16-18).
These limitations are not clearly supported by Applicant’s original disclosure. Applicant’s specification as filed at paragraph 20 discloses that a formed filter material can be adhered to the interior of the second chamber and that the filter may be consistent with one or more aspects of the filter described in U.S. Pat. App. Ser. NO. 18/599,862 incorporated by reference in its entirety. However, neither disclosures clearly support or specifically disclose that there is a circumferential adhesive bond located at a lower portion of the interior surface of the second chamber. While paragraphs 19-21 disclose a filter disc that can be adhered to the interior of the second chamber, there is no disclosure specifically directed to “a circumferential adhesive bond located at a lower portion of the interior surface of the second chamber.” Applicant’s figures while showing a second chamber 120, do not specifically disclose a filter in a lower portion thereof and the ‘862 Application that has been incorporated by reference also does not specifically disclose a second chamber within a first chamber and which second chamber has a filter with a circumferential adhesive bond located at a lower portion of the interior surface of the second chamber. Therefore, this limitation is not seen to be reasonably supported by Applicant’s originally filed disclosure.
In view of the above, there is not seen to be reasonable support for the limitation, “wherein the circumferential adhesive bond spans a full inner circumference of the second chamber such that the filter disc forms a sealed lower boundary within the second chamber.”
In addition, reasonable support for possession of the limitation, “wherein the filter disc and the second chamber form a unitary subassembly configured to be inserted into and removed from the chamber as a single unit” cannot be found in Applicant’s original disclosure. Applicant’s original disclosure and the ‘862 Application incorporated by reference do not disclose and support forming a “unitary subassembly configured to be inserted into and removed from the first chamber as a single unit.” Therefore, this limitation is also new matter.
Claims 2-5 and 8-20 are rejected based on their dependence to a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 8, 10, 12, 15, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aviles (US 20140161940) in view of Doleac (US 20130115340) and in further view of Edwards (WO 2023057382) and in further view of Trombetta (US 20140161936), Williams (US 4889731) and Huffer (US 20190112109) and in further view of Husband (US 20140287105) and Marcinkowski (US 20170355515) and in further view of Wicks (US 20170081111) Accursi (US 20150353275) and Oh (US 20200121115).
Samir et al. (Recent advances in biodegradable polymers for sustainable applications) has been relied on as evidence.
Regarding claim 1, Aviles discloses a container “for” (i.e. capable of) handling beverage substances (see at least the abstract), wherein the container comprises:
a first chamber (see figure 1, item 12,17), wherein the first chamber comprises a first exterior shell having a flange located at an upper area of the first chamber (see figure 1, item 19);
a second chamber (see figure 1, item 40) removably attached to the first chamber (see paragraph 43 which discloses that the lid can be removed and therefore the second chamber 1102 would have been capable of being removed from the first chamber), wherein the second chamber comprises a second exterior shell (see figure 1, item 40) having a rim located at an upper perimeter of the second chamber (see figure1 and the rim near item 42); and
a lid coupled to the flange and the rim (see figure 1, near item 19, 38 and 42; and paragraph 21 and 23, where the lid is coupled to both the flange and the rim).
Aviles discloses that the lid comprises a frangible seal, since the lid 38 is pierceable (see figure 1, item 50) and since paragraph 15 of Applicant’s specification as filed refers to a frangible seals as a type of seal designed to break or rupture easily under an applied force. In this instance, Aviles’s piercing needle applies a force to break the seal formed by the lid.
Nonetheless, claim 1 differs from Aviles in specifically reciting, “wherein the lid comprises a frangible seal configured to have a variable peel strength comprising a multi-layered film wherein the multi-layered film comprises a first layer and a second layer, wherein the first layer has a lower tensile strength relative to the second layer, wherein the first layer is configured to rupture under stress before the second layer is peeled back” and
“wherein the frangible seal further comprises a perforated pattern along a predefined path, wherein the perforated pattern is configured to control tearing as a function of an applied force, and wherein the lid comprises a lift tab configured to initiate rupture of the frangible seal along the predefined path.”
Regarding the lid comprising a multi-layered film and “wherein the multi-layered film comprises a first layer and a second layer, wherein the first layer has a lower tensile strength relative to the second layer, wherein the first layer is configured to rupture under stress before the second layer is peeled back” it is noted that Doleac (US 20130115340) teaches a lid comprising multiple layers (see paragraph 21: “said top wall comprising at least one layer of a pre-pierced film that is flexible enough to deform without piercing when in contact with the injection needle”; see figure 4, item 3 and paragraph 42: “pierceable layer 13, and the inner layer 14”). Doleac teaches that the “top” first layer (figure 4, item 13) is a pierceable layer and the second layer (figure 4, item 14) is a deformable layer that contacts the needle but deforms so as to accommodate the shape of the needle without being pierced (see paragraph 42). Since the first layer is pierced and then second layer deforms around the needle and delaminates from the first layer 13 as a result of contact with the needle, Doleac is teaching that the first layer is configured to rupture under stress before the second layer is peeled back. In view of this, it would also have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that Doleac is also teaching that the tensile strength of the first layer is lower relative to the second layer. Doleac teaches that this configuration is advantageous for producing fluid shower jets that have a reduced speed compared to the speed of the fluid coming out of the needle (see paragraph 43) and can provide good dissolution and/or extraction properties while avoiding backflow and contamination of the injection needle (see paragraph 10).
Since Aviles also teaches puncturing a lid of a container for handling beverage substances to produce a beverage therefrom, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified Aviles and used a lidding film that comprises a multilayered film with a first layer having a lower tensile strength relative to a second layer such that he first layer ruptures under stress before the second layer is peeled back, as taught by Doleac, for the purpose of providing good dissolution and/or extraction properties while avoiding backflow and contamination of the injection needle.
While the above teachings of Doleac are not clear regarding a frangible seal having a variable peel strength, Edwards (WO 2023057382) teaches using filler at the seal between the lid and the flange for lowering the peel strength, or to provide a peel instigation point of the first peripheral seal to enable the lid to be more easily peeled off the capsule body for recycling purposes (see page 13, lines 2-8) and where the peak peeling force can be between 10-30N (see page 4, line 29 to page 5, line 5), thus teaching and suggesting that the peeling force is variable (see also figure 21 where the peak force also varies), for peeling the lid off the capsule (see page 12, lines 12-15).
Therefore, to modify Aviles, who already desires to remove the lid (see paragraph 43), and to provide a lid with a frangible seal configured to have a variable peel strength would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, as taught by Edwards, for the purpose of making it easier to remove the lid to access the contents and to facilitate separation of the container contents for biodegradability and recycling purposes.
Regarding the limitation of, “wherein the frangible seal further comprises a perforated pattern along a predefined path, wherein the perforated pattern is configured to control tearing as a function of an applied force, wherein the lid comprises a lift tab configured to initiate rupture of the frangible seal along the predefined path,” the claim differs from the above combination in this regard.
However, Trombetta936 (US 20140161936) teaches that the seal between a lid (figure 12, item 18) and a flange (figure 12, item 28, 68) can comprise a frangible seal comprising perforated pattern that would obviously have been used for controlling tearing and therefore removal of the lid (see figure 12, 13 and 16, item 80 and 30; paragraph 98: “separation point” and paragraph 103: “perforations”; as shown in figure 16, perforations 80 on the top side would have been part of the frangible seal). As shown in figure 13, there is a “lift tab” (30), that would have been configured to initiate rupture of the frangible seal along the predefined path. Trombetta936 teaches that this can be advantageous for facilitating removal of the lid and filter from the container, for properly disposing of a used capsule (see paragraph 6 and 105). Trombetta936 further teaches that it has been desirable to separate a second chamber from a first chamber for recycling purposes (see paragraph 5) and therefore also provides motivation for being able to remove the second chamber for the first chamber.
Williams (US 4889731) also discloses a lid (figure 6, item 3-5), comprising a tab (figure 6, item 4-5) and where the lid comprises a frangible seal that further comprises perforations (see figure 1 and 2, item 9), which are therefore in a pattern, and which are along a pre-defined path so as to control tearing (see column 7, lines 30-47 and column 7, line 62 to column 8, lines 9).
Huffer (US 20190112109) teaches a peelable lid (see figure 1 and 2), which lid would obviously have comprised a frangible seal since it is peelable. The lid also comprises a tab (see figure 1, item 38) and the frangible seal also comprises a perforated pattern (see figure 1, 2 and 4, item 32 and 40; see paragraph 27 where the scores can be perforations) along a predefined that is configured to control tearing and where the tab is configured to initiate rupture of the frangible seal along the predefined path. Huffer teaches that such score lines and a tab can be helpful for easy opening of the lid (see paragraph 1).
To therefore modify the combination and provide the frangible seal with a predefined perforated path and a tab as part of the lid would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, for the purpose of making it easier to remove the lid when it was desired to properly dispose of the various components of the beverage capsule.
Claim 1 recites that the container comprises, “a filter disc disposed within a cavity of the first chamber, wherein the filter disc comprises a formed filter material adhered to an interior surface of the second chamber, such that removal of the second chamber from the first chamber simultaneously removes the filter disc from the cavity, wherein the formed filter material is adhered to the interior surface of the second chamber by a circumferential adhesive bond located at a lower portion of the interior surface of the second chamber, wherein the circumferential adhesive bond spans a full inner circumference of the second chamber such that the filter disc forms a sealed lower boundary within the second chamber, wherein the filter disc and the second chamber form a unitary subassembly configured to be inserted into and removed from the first chamber as a single unit, and wherein the filter disc spans a cross-sectional area of the second chamber to retain a beverage substance within the second chamber while permitting passage of a beverage liquid therethrough.”
In this regard, Aviles teaches that there can be a filter material (figure 1, item 30) that can be attached to the container and within a second chamber (see paragraph 28). Aviles also teaches that the filter can be a flat sheet within the second chamber and therefore can be coupled to the interior of the second chamber (see paragraph 29). That is, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that Aviles’ disclosure that the filter can be a flat sheet and which can be within the second chamber, would have suggested positioning the filter within the chamber 40 and attached in some manner to an interior surface of the chamber such that the beverage ingredients are retained by the filter, while the liquid can be filtered through the cartridge. This is further supported by paragraph 28 also teaching that there can be a fluid impermeable plastic sleeve to which the porous filter paper can be attached (see paragraph 28: “For example, the filter 30 can include a rigid, fluid impermeable plastic sleeve… at a location away from the lid 38, a porous filter paper can be attached to the sleeve”). Aviles also teaches that known expedients for coupling the filter can be via adhesive (see paragraph 29). Therefore, Aviles is suggesting a formed filter disc adhered to an interior of the second chamber and which filter would have been within a cavity of the first chamber. In view of figure 1, for example, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that Aviles’ second chamber with a filter therein would have been capable of being removed from the first chamber 12 while simultaneously removing the filter.
If it could have been construed that Aviles was not clear regarding a filter disc adhered to an interior surface of the second chamber and “wherein the formed filter material is adhered to the interior surface of the second chamber by a circumferential adhesive bond located at a lower portion of the interior surface of the second chamber, wherein the circumferential adhesive bond spans a full inner circumference of the second chamber such that the filter disc forms a sealed lower boundary within the second chamber, wherein the filter disc and the second chamber form a unitary subassembly configured to be inserted into and removed from the first chamber as a single unit, and wherein the filter disc spans a cross-sectional area of the second chamber to retain a beverage substance within the second chamber while permitting passage of a beverage liquid therethrough,”
then it is noted that, Husband (US 20140287105) evidences that it has been conventional to bond a filter disc to an interior surface of a chamber (see figure 4, item 55 and paragraph 42, last sentence). Husband also teaches in figure 2 that there is a first chamber (figure 2, item 12) and a second chamber within the first chamber (figure 2, item 18), and which second chamber has a filter disc (figure 2, item 44) which is attached to an interior surface of the second chamber defined by item 14 (see paragraph 39 which discloses that the filter member 44 can be coupled to the first filter member 14; and where the coupling can be via adhesive). Husband further teaches that the filter disc spans a cross-sectional area of the second chamber to retain a beverage substance within the second chamber while permitting passage of a beverage liquid therethrough (see figure 4).
Marcinkowski (US 20170355515) also teaches a container comprising a first chamber (figure 1 and 2, item 12, 17), a second chamber (see figure 1 and 2, item 20), and which second chamber comprises disc shaped filter (see figure 1-3, item 30) and which disc shaped filter can be adhered to a sidewall of the second chamber (see figure 2, item 30 and paragraph 21) and therefore would span a cross-sectional area of the second chamber to retain a beverage substance within the second chamber while permitting passage of a beverage liquid therethrough. Marcinkowski also suggests that the capsule can be separated apart for recycling purposes (see paragraph 36).
Since both Husband and Marcinkowski are therefore teaching that the formed filter material spanning a cross-sectional area of the second chamber, and which filter material is adhered to the interior surface of the second chamber and since the second chamber is circumferential, it would have been obvious that the adhesive bond between the filter and the second chamber would have been circumferential and would have spanned a full inner circumference of the second chamber such that the filter disc forms a sealed boundary within the second chamber to form a unitary subassembly that is capable of being inserted into and removed from the first chamber as a single unit and where the filter disc spans a cross-sectional area of the second chamber to retain a beverage substance within the second chamber while permitting passage of a beverage liquid there-through. That is, the purpose of a filter is to ensure that the beverage ingredients is retained such that it would have been obvious for a filter disc to have a sealed boundary between the filter and the chamber in order to prevent beverage ingredients from inadvertently passing between the filter and the chamber - which would obviously have defeated the purpose of the filter. Because Husband and Marcinkowski teach that the filter is adhered to the chamber inner wall, the prior art is teaching that the filter disc being attached to Aviles’ second chamber inner wall would also have formed a unitary subassembly.
Nonetheless, it is further noted that Wicks (US 20170081111) teaches a filter positioned in a chamber, and adhered to the interior surface of the chamber by bonding the whole periphery of the filter material (see figure 6, item 330; paragraph 66, 2nd to last sentence; paragraph 72) and which filter can be construed as being sealed at a lower portion of the chamber.
Accursi (US 20150353275) also teaches sealing a filter to a lower portion of a chamber (see figure 1, item 27 and 32 and paragraph 89) and where such a seal can be a continuous annular seal (see paragraph 89) and where such a continuous seal is useful for preventing liquid from passing through the chamber without passing through the filtering material (see paragraph 105, last sentence).
Further regarding the filter disc being positioned at a lower portion of the interior of the second chamber via a circumferential adhesive bond located at a lower portion of the interior surface of the second chamber,
Oh (US 20200121115) teaches capsules comprising a first chamber (figure 6B, item 366C) and a second chamber (figure 6B, item 364C) and which second chamber can comprise a filter disc (see figure 6B, item 306C) coupled to the interior surface of the second chamber at a lower portion of the second chamber, for the purpose of providing multiple beverage producing ingredients within the second chamber (see paragraph 129).
Since Aviles is not limiting as to the particular number of ingredients and even suggests the filter within the second chamber, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified Aviles to include a filter disc bonded via a circumferential adhesive bond within a lower portion of the second chamber based on a rearrangement of Aviles’ filter in view of known expedients for how one can affix a filter disc to a chamber; and for providing additional compartments within Aviles’ second chamber for additional ingredients as well as based on conventional expedients by which one can affix a filter within a chamber of a beverage handling container and to prevent liquid from passing through Aviles’ second chamber without first passing through the filter.
Further regarding the limitation that the unitary subassembly is configured to be inserted into and removed from the first chamber as a single unit, it is noted that the claim is directed to the product and not a method of making the product. In view of this, the claimed structure is that there is a filter disc adhered to the interior of the second chamber and which second chamber is attached to the first chamber. In view of this, the prior art combination this structure such that the prior art combination would have been capable of having the second chamber with the filter therein as a unitary structure that can be attached to the first chamber and removed from the first chamber as a unitary structure.
Regarding the limitation of, “such that removal of the second chamber from the first chamber simultaneously removes the filter disc from the cavity,” in view of Husband, Oh and Marcinkowski teaching and suggesting a filter disc that is adhered to an interior surface of the second chamber, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that a removal of Aviles’ second chamber would also have been capable of simultaneously removing the filter disc from the cavity. It is noted that this limitation is an intended use limitation such that, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 2, Aviles discloses that the first chamber, the second chamber, and the lid further comprise a metal (see paragraph 21 and 40 which discloses that first chamber, second chamber and lid can comprise metallic foil).
Regarding claim 3, Aviles discloses that the first chamber, the second chamber, and the lid further comprise a biodegradable material (see paragraph 21 which discloses that first chamber, second chamber and lid can comprise biopolymers and compostable polymers, which are known to be biodegradable). Samir (“Recent Advances in Biodegradable Polymers for Sustainable Applications”), evidences the biopolymers are biodegradable polymers (see page 1, left column, four lines from the bottom).
Regarding claim 8, while Aviles teaches that the lid can be removed, claim 8 differs from Aviles in specifically reciting, “wherein the lift tab is further configured to facilitate a removal of the lid from the flange and the rim.”
However, the combination, as applied to claim 1 teaches the use of a tab for facilitating access to the contents and for removing the lid from the capsule. Additionally, Edwards also teaches a lift tab for facilitating removal of the lid (see page 4, line 31, “Lid tab”; page 12, lines 12-15). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the combination and provided a tab to the lid for facilitating removal of the lid from the container.
Regarding claim 10, Aviles discloses that the formed filter material comprises paper (see paragraph 28 “filter paper”) and as such, the combination teaches the formed filter comprises paper.
Regarding claim 12, the filter paper is configured to separate a beverage substance from a beverage liquid to produce a filtered liquid. It is noted that this is an intended use of filter paper, which filter paper would clearly have been able to perform.
Regarding claim 15, Aviles discloses that the lid and the second chamber can be attached together by thermal welding (see paragraph 23) thus disclosing heat sealing.
Regarding claims 19 and 20, Aviles discloses that the lid and the first chamber can be attached together and that the lid and the flange can be attached together in any suitable way, such as by thermal welding, adhesive or ultrasonic welding (see paragraph 23 and 43) thus disclosing the lid heat sealed to the rim and the lid welded to the flange and the rim.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination as applied to claim 3, which relies on Aviles (US 20140161940) as the primary reference, and in further view of Tedford (US 20120097602).
While Aviles teaches that the first chamber, the second chamber and the lid can comprise biodegradable material as discussed above with respect to claim 3, claim 4 differs from Aviles in specifically reciting, “wherein the biodegradable material comprises polylactic acid.”
Tedford teaches biodegradable polymers that can be used for the purpose of making a biodegradable or compostable container for handling beverage substances, such as polylactic acid (see paragraph 33).
Since Aviles already teaches the use of biopolymers and compostable polymers, to modify Aviles and include known biodegradable polymers as part of the first chamber, second chamber and the lid, such as polylactic acid, would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, based on known materials used for making a beverage container biodegradable and therefore reduce the container’s environmental impact.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination as applied to claim 1, which relies on Aviles (US 20140161940) as the primary reference, Andrae (US 20170158422), Footz (US 20140335236) or Gorbatenko (US 20130045308).
Regarding claim 5, Aviles teaches the use of adhesives (see paragraph 23, 29) but claim 5 differs from Aviles in specifically reciting, “wherein the flange and the rim comprise a biodegradable adhesive.”
Andrae teaches the use of biodegradable adhesives (see paragraph 18). Andrae teaches the use of biodegradable materials for the capsule so as to reduce environmental pollution (see paragraph 3). Footz also teaches biodegradable beverage containers using a biodegradable adhesive for fastening a cover to the container (see paragraph 26) Gorbatenko also teaches beverage containers that can use biodegradable adhesives as sealing agents (see paragraph 35).
In view of this, and since Aviles already teaches the use of biodegradable materials, to modify Aviles and to also use biodegradable adhesives as taught by Andrae, Footz or Gorbatenko, would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, for the purpose of providing biodegradability to all parts of the capsule structure.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination as applied to claim 1, which relies on Aviles (US 20140161940) as the primary reference, and in further view of Gorbatenko (US 20130045308).
Claim 9 differs from Aviles in specifically reciting, “wherein the lid comprises one or more of a semi-permeable material and a perforated material.”
Gorbatekno teaches that the lid to the beverage container (8) can comprise a one-way venting valve (see figure 6A-B and paragraph 47), for the purpose of allowing carbon dioxide that can be generated by coffee within the package to outgas (see paragraph 48-49). Gorbatenko teaches that this can relieve pressure from within the package (see paragraph 49). The venting structure of the lid can be construed as the lid comprising a perforated material or a semi-permeable material (see figures 6A-6C).
Since Aviles also teaches that the package can contain ground coffee, for example (see paragraph 18) to modify Aviles and to include a lid that comprises a perforated material, as taught by Gorbatenko, would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art for the purpose of preventing undesired buildup of pressure due to carbon dioxide generated by the coffee and to thus allow the carbon dioxide to be outgassed from the package.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination as applied to claim 10, which relies on Aviles (US 20140161940) as the primary reference, and in further view of Rasmussen (US 20150251846), Hill (WO 2014110355) and Kuang (CN 109592230).
Regarding claim 11, while Aviles teaches a filter, claim 11 differs in specifically reciting, “wherein the filter comprises a plurality of pores, wherein the plurality of pores of a uniform size, a uniform shape, and a uniformly spaced.”
Rasmussen (US 20150251846) teaches a filter material comprising a plurality of pores that are uniformly spaced and with a uniform size and shape (see figures 11-12, filter 31; see also paragraph 131 which teaches the same shape and size of a plurality of holes). Hill (WO 2014110355) teaches a filter (figure 8, item 3) as part of a container used for handling beverages, which can have uniform pores (see page 21, lines 23-24) with a size of 1-200 microns (see page 5, lines 2-8) with shapes such as circular (see page 2, lines 23-30) and in any distribution (see page 3, lines 19-21) with common spacing therebetween (see page 8, lines 5-9). Kuang (CN 109592230) teaches a filter within a container for a beverage (see figure 1 and 3, item 2), which has uniformly distributed pores (see paragraph 59 of the machine translation) which have the same shape and size (see paragraph 58).
To therefore modify Aviles’s filter to have a plurality of pores that are of a uniform size and shape and are uniformly spaced would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, as an obvious matter of engineering and/or design, based on known configurations for filtering materials used for containers that handle beverage substances.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination as applied to claim 12, which relies on Aviles (US 20140161940) as the primary reference, and in further view of Trombetta (US 20150166257) and Tinkler (US 20150201791).
Regarding claims 13 and 14, the combination as applied to claim 12 teaches that the first chamber is sized to contain the second chamber. Regarding the particular amount of the beverage substance in the second chamber, it is noted that the claims do not limit what can be a single serving of the beverage substance or a multi-serving of the beverage substance. In this regard, Applicant’s specification at paragraph 22 provides an example where a single serving of coffee may be 8-12 grams of ground coffee but does not limit the single serving to 8-12 grams of ground coffee (see paragraph 22 which discloses a non-limiting example being 8-12 grams of coffee grinds). Paragraph 23 of Applicant’s specification as filed in similar in this regard, with respect to a multi-serving. That is, paragraph 23 discloses a multi-serving is a portion size intended for consumption by more than one person, with a non-limiting example being 60-120 grams of coffee grinds. Therefore, Applicant’s specification is not limiting as to what can be construed as a single serving or a multi-serving, and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that a single and multi-serving can vary based on the particular beverage and beverage substance used, as well as the preferences of the consumer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that depending on what could be construed as a single serving or a multi-serving of the beverage substance, that Aviles’s second container would have been configured to hold either serving sizes.
Even further however, it is noted that to modify Aviles and to modify the size of the second chamber and to accordingly size the first chamber would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art based on how much of a beverage was desired to be prepared (see MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A)).
In any case, Trombetta257 (US 20150166257) further teaches containers for handling beverage substances, which can be sized for single servings or multiple servings (see paragraph 32). Tinkler also teaches cartridges that can hold an amount of a beverage ingredient that can be construed as a single serving or multiple servings (see paragraph 32 where an amount of beverage medium that forms a 5oz beverage can be construed as a single serving, while an amount of beverage medium that forms a 16oz beverage can be construed as multiple servings.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified Aviles to size the second chamber and the first chamber accordingly depending on the particular type and amount of a beverage that was desired to be produced from the container. The combination also teaches that the first chamber contains the second chamber, as taught by Aviles.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination as applied to claim 1, which relies on Aviles (US 20140161940) as the primary reference, and in further view of Rondelli (US 20140161937) or Sweeney (US 20020020659).
Claim 16 differs from Aviles in specifically reciting, “wherein the first exterior shell comprises an outer surface having at least a recess in a longitudinally indentation shape.”
Rondelli teaches a container for handling beverage substances that can have longitudinally extending ribs and therefore recesses on the outer surface of the container to strengthen the structure of the sidewall (see figure 1, item 104 and paragraph 26). Sweeney is similar in this regard (see paragraph 50 and figure 2, item 20)
To therefore modify Aviles and to also provide longitudinally extending ribs and therefore longitudinally extending recesses (i.e. indentations), would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, for the purpose of strengthening the sidewall structure of Aviles’s container.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination as applied to claim 1, which relies on Aviles (US 20140161940) as the primary reference, and in further view of Kuo (20220033173) and Hodge (US 20120318810).
Claim 17 differs from Aviles in specifically reciting, “wherein the first exterior shell comprises an inner surface having at least a ridge in a longitudinally protruding shape, and wherein the at least a ridge is configured to restrict a movement of a second container upon engaging with at least a recess along an outer surface of the second container’s first exterior shell.”
Kuo teaches a container for handling beverage substances (see the abstract) comprising a first container (figure 1a and 1B, item 14) which comprises an inner surface having at least a ridge in a longitudinally protruding shape (see figure 1C, item 242, 244, 246, 2443) , and wherein the at least a ridge is configured to restrict a movement of a second container (figure 1a, item 12) upon engaging with at least a recess along an outer surface of the second container’s first exterior shell (see figure 1a, item 142; see paragraph 94, “convex surface structures 142 respectively corresponding to said pits 246”) which are useful for stop and position limit within nesting between the containers (see paragraph 8 and 9). Because the exterior surface 142 is raised, there would have been corresponding recessed portions adjacent the raised portions, which would have been in registration with the interior ridge of the first container.
To therefore modify Aviles and to provide exterior recesses on Aviles’s second container which would engage with an inner ridge would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art for securing Aviles’s second container in place using another known expedient for performing this function.
Hodges further evidences that it has been conventional to provide an inner longitudinal ridge that would engage with a second container outer surface recess, for the purpose of securing the two containers in position (see figure 3B, where item 48 can be construed as an inner surface ridge, and item 38 can be construed as a second container outer surface recess). To thus modify Aviles in view of Kuo and to use another known configuration for securing two containers together, would have been obvious to one having oirndary skill in the art, as a matter of engineering and or design based on known expedients for being able to nest containers together.
It is also noted that the claim only requires the inner surface ridge of the first exterior shell to be capable of restricting movement of a second container upon engaging with at least a recess along an outer surface of the second container exterior shell. In this regard, the combination in view of Kuo and Hodges would have been capable of this function for the purpose of nesting multiple containers together prior to assembly.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination as applied to claim 1, which relies on Aviles (US 20140161940) as the primary reference, and in further view of Kuang (CN 109592230) or Milani (WO 2006008243).
Claim 18 differs from Aviles in specifically reciting, “wherein the first exterior shell comprises a cylindrical shape with a semi-conical bottom area.”
However, Kuang teaches a container for handling beverage substances, where the first exterior shell comprises a cylindrical shape with a semi-conical bottom area (see figure 1). MIlani also teaches a container for beverages with a first exterior shell comprising a cylindrical shape with a semi-conical bottom area (see figure 3 and 6)
To therefore modify Aviles and use another shape suitable for containers used for handling beverage substances would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, as an obvious matter of engineering and/or design, based on other known shapes for beverage containers.
Response to Arguments
On page 3 of the response, Applicant urges that the newly presented claim limitations directed to the filter being adhered by a circumferential adhesive bond located at a lower portion of the interior surface of the second chamber, and which bond spans the full inner circumference of the second chamber such that the filter disc forms a sealed lower boundary within the second chamber is not an intended use characterization of what the prior art could theoretically accomplish but is a positive structural limitation describing where the adhesive bond is located, what geometry it follows and what structural result it produces and none of Aviles, Husband, Oh or Marcinkowski teach these structural limitations.
These arguments are not sufficient to overcome the rejection as presented int his Office Action. It is initially noted that as Aviles already teaches that the second chamber can comprise a filter disc attached within the chamber, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that a circular shaped filter disc positioned within Aviles’ circular shaped second chamber would have required some form of a circumferential seal to secure the filter disc to the second chamber interior. Nonetheless, Wicks and Accursi have been relied on as presented in this Office Action to teach a full, continuous seal between a filter and the interior of a chamber, such that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use this configuration, because Wicks and Accursi teach and suggest that such a seal can be useful for ensuring all the liquid passes through the filter.
Further on page 3-4 of the response, Applicant urges that the filter disc and the second chamber forming a unitary subassembly configured to be inserted into and removed from the first chamber as a single unit imposes a structural requirement that the adhesive bond must be of sufficient character and placement to render the filter disc and second chamber a unified structural assembly for the purposes of insertion and removal and therefore is not an intended use limitation. Applicant urges that the unitary subassembly limitation goes beyond the mere capability of simultaneous removal and requires that he filter disc and second chamber be structurally integrated into a single unit that is designed and configured for insertion and removal as a whole.
This argument has been considered but is not seen to be sufficient to overcome the rejection as presented in this Office Action. It is further noted that the claims are directed to a product, and not a method of making the product. In view of this, and since the combination teaches the structure of the filter disc comprising a continuous circumferential seal to the interior of the second chamber, such a configuration can also be construed as a unitary subassembly, especially because this is how the claimed unitary subassembly has been achieved.
On page 4 of the response, Applicant urges that the filter disc spanning a cross-section al area of the second chamber to retain a beverage substance within the second chamber while permitting passage of a beverage liquid therethrough defines the functional and geometric relationship between the filter disc and the second chamber because the filter ids must extend across the full cross-sectional area of the second chamber to create a complete barrier that retains beverage substance above the filter disc and therefore describes a specific structural configuration in which the filter disc and its circumferential bond together define a complete closed boundary across the second chamber.
These arguments are not sufficient to overcome the rejection in view of the rejection as presented in this Office Action. It is also noted that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the purpose of a filter within the interior of a chamber used for making beverages is to retain the filter ingredients while allowing liquid to pass through the filter, such that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill the art that the prior art also teaches a functional and geometric relationship between the filter and the second chamber.
On pages 4-5 of the response, Applicant urges that the Office Action does not identify any teaching in Aviles or the secondary references of a filter disc that spans the full cross-sectional area of a second chamber in combination with a circumferential bond at the lower interior surface that creates a sealed lower boundary, forming with the second chamber a unitary subassembly designed for single-unit insertion and removal.
These arguments are not sufficient in view of the rejections as presented in this Office Action.
The remainder of Applicant’s arguments on pages 5-13 of the response reiterate those remarks presented above, and therefore are not sufficient for the reasons discussed above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Peterson (US 20120308688) discloses a filter (figure 4, item 3) attached to a lower portion of the chamber (see figure 4).
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 VIREN THAKUR whose telephone number is (571)272-6694. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10:30-7:00pm.
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 on 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.
/VIREN A THAKUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights