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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are unclear in light of the specification on page 1, line 29 to page 2, line 2 referring to figure 1 as the capsule described in patent EP 1472156, published November 3, 2004; while on page 6, lines 12 and 17, the specification refers to Figure 1 as the capsule according to the present invention. Therefore it is not clear as to what Figure 1 is depicting: prior art or the inventive capsule.
Page 6, line 23 of the specification also refers to “the perspective view of Figure 2,” which cannot be found. On page 6, line 13-14, the specification refers to Figure 2 as a schematic cross-section of the multilayer material of the bottom membrane.
On page 7, line 29 the specification relies on character “21” to depict a chamber below the opening device 5; whereas on page 10, reference character 21 is used to refer to a sidewall. This makes the drawings unclear because figure 1 does not use reference character 21 to point to a chamber below the opening device.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “511” and “512” as presented on at least, page 2, line 2, page 8, lines 24-25 and page 9, line 22-23 cannot be found in the figures.
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. 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 Objections
Claims 5 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5 recites the limitation, “wherein the grammage of the non-woven material is between 5 and 100 g/m2.” For matters of form, it is suggested to amend this limitation to recite, “wherein the non-woven material has a grammage between 5 and 100 g/m2”.
Claim 7 recites, “wherein the grammage of the vegetable parchment is between 30 and 120 g/m2.” For matters of form, it is suggested to amend this limitation to recite, “wherein the vegetable parchment has a grammage between 30 and 120 g/m2”. 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 1-14 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 1 recites the limitation, “the top opening” on line 5, which lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 1 recites, “said liquid” on line 11, which lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 1 recites the limitation, “the vegetable parchment support” on the last line of the claim, which lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claims 2-14 are rejected based on their dependence to a rejected claim.
Regarding claim 2, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 9 recites, “wherein the capsule further comprises a capsule body made of….” Claim 1 already recites “a capsule body” on line 4 and in view of this, claim 9 is not clear as to whether it is intending to refer to a different capsule body from that already recited in claim 1, or whether the claim is intending to further specify that the capsule body of claim 1 is made of biodegradable or compostable materials.
Claim 10 recites, “wherein the capsule further comprises a top membrane made of….” Claim 1 already recites “a top membrane” on line 5 and in view of this, claim 10 is not clear as to whether it is intending to refer to a different top membrane from that already recited in claim 1, or whether the claim is intending to further specify that the top membrane of claim 1 is made of biodegradable or compostable materials.
Claim 12 recites, “the upper surface” on line 3, which lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 12 recites, “said liquid” on line 5, which lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 12 recites the limitation, “sharp” on the last line of the claim. The term “sharp” is a relative term that has not been defined by the claims or specification, thus making the scope of what can be construed a “sharp” unclear.
Claim 13 recites, “the plate” which lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 13 recites, “the upper surface” and “the lower surface,” both of which lack proper antecedent basis.
Claim 13 recites, “the rising opening elements” on the last line, which lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 14 recites, “said polymeric composition comprising at least one polymer selected from the group consisting of polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHA).” This limitation is not clear because it recites a Markush group with only one element, thus making the limitation unclear as to what are the other polymers that would have been a part of the Markush group.
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boss (WO 2020120432) in view of Dogan (US 20140186498) in view of Miozzo (US 20200216256) and in further view of Cabilli (US 20180037402) or Footz (US 20220017294).
Regarding claims 1 and 11-13, Boss teaches a capsule for use in a beverage preparation machine, said capsule containing a soluble and/or extractable beverage ingredient (see figure 1, item 14), said capsule comprising: a capsule body (figure 1, item 3) defining a chamber (see figure 1 and 14), a top membrane closing the top opening (figure 1, item 4), and adapted to be punctured for liquid injection into the capsule (see page 8, lines 21-23), and a bottom membrane provided inside the chamber so as to define between the top membrane and said bottom membrane an ingredient chamber (see figure 1, item 9 and at least the abstract and page 9, lines 24-28) and which ingredient chamber comprises roast and ground coffee as recited in claim 11 (see page 7, lines 1-2), and an opening device (figure 3a-4c, item 15; page 10, lines 26-29) provided inside the chamber and adapted to open the chamber by relative engagement of said opening device with the bottom membrane under the effect of the liquid pressure increase in the ingredient chamber during injection of said liquid (see figure 3b-3c and page 11, line 21 to page 12, line 16). Further regarding claim 12, Boss teaches that the opening device also comprises a plate and said plate comprises opening elements that can be construed as sharp pointed ends rising from an upper surface of the plate and designed to tear the bottom membrane under the effect of an increase in liquid pressure (see figure 2, item 16; page 10, lines 11-12, 26-29); and regarding claim 13, Boss teaches that the plate of the opening device comprises beverage evacuation holes extending form the upper surface of the plate to the lower surface of the plate and between the rising opening elements (see page 10, lines 26-28).
Claim 1 differs from Boss in specifically reciting wherein the bottom membrane is a laminated multilayer material comprising successively: a vegetable parchment layer, an adhesive layer and a non-woven material layer
It is initially noted that Dogan498 teaches and suggests that it has been conventional to provide a bottom membrane (5) that is pierceable upon contact with an internal opening device (6) (see figure 6, item 5 and 6 and paragraph 53) and which bottom membrane can be made of combinations that include paper and plastic (see paragraph 31).
Miozzo teaches a multilayer laminate sealing membrane comprising an outermost vegetable parchment layer (see figure 1, item 1; paragraph 54) then an adhesive layer (figure 1, item 2; paragraph 54) and a non-woven layer (Figure 1, item 3; paragraph 54) and which non-woven layer comprises biodegradable fibers such as PLA fibers (see paragraph 56-58). Miozzo teaches that the non-woven layer (3) faces the coffee grounds, for instance, for the purpose of providing a filtering effect (see paragraph 54 - last sentence; paragraph 109). Miozzo teaches that such a multilayer sealing membrane is advantageous because it is more environmentally friendly (see paragraph 5) while still allowing the membrane to be punctured after an increase in pressure within the capsule resulting in the membrane pressing against puncturing elements to release a beverage (see paragraph 21) while also providing the requisite tear resistance (paragraph 22, 24, 25 and 39) and oxygen barrier properties (paragraph 38). Miozzo also teaches that the bottom (figure 2, item 36) of the capsule can also comprise a similar membrane as that discussed above, such that the non-woven layer would be facing the chamber (figure 2, item 44) (see paragraph 55).
Miozzo is therefore also teaching that the multilayer membrane has an outermost vegetable parchment layer that first contacts an opening device (see paragraph 21). This would have been analogous to Boss’s opening device 15.
To therefore modify Boss and to use a membrane comprising vegetable parchment facing Boss’s piercing plate, then an adhesive and then a non-woven positioned closest to Boss’s beverage ingredient, would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, for the purpose of providing a biodegradable film that is environmentally friendly, while still also providing the requisite puncture and tear resistance prior to use and while also providing the desired filtering via a non-woven as already desired by Boss.
Further regarding the bottom membrane, Cabilli teaches that it has been conventional to provide a pierceable bottom membrane to a beverage capsule (see figure 2, item 142) and which bottom membrane can be a parchment layer (paragraph 51) which is heat sealed to the capsule (see figure 2, item 142, 146; paragraph 30).
Footz similarly teaches a parchment lidding material that can be affixed to both the top and bottom of a beverage capsule (see figure 2, item 210 and paragraph 81) using adhesives, ultrasonic or thermal welding as a means for bonding (see paragraph 47, “parchment paper”; “adhesive”, “ultrasonic or thermal weld”). Cabilli and Footz further evidence that one having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in using Miozzo’s multilayer membrane as Boss’s bottom membrane, as a more environmentally friendly sealing and pierceable membrane that can also provide a filtering function to contain Boss’s beverage ingredient within the ingredient chamber.
Regarding claim 2, in view of Miozzo the combination teaches that the biodegradable fibers can be PLA fibers (see paragraph 66). Miozzo teaches that such PLA fibers are advantageous because they are biosourced, biodegradable and compostable (paragraph 59) and to therefore modify the combination to use PLA fibers would have been obvious for providing a non-woven having the requisite filtering while also being biodegradable and compostable and therefore more environmentally friendly.
Regarding claim 3, in view of Miozzo the combination teaches that the non-woven material comprises biodegradable fibers that are heat-sealable fibers that have a melting point of at least about 100°C (see paragraph 57). To modify the combination to use fibers with a melting point of 100-250°C for example, would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, for providing the requisite heat sealability of the non-woven layer.
Regarding claim 4, in view of Miozzo the combination teaches that the fibers of the non-woven material can be composed exclusively of PLA (see paragraph 66 which discloses 100% PLA fibers).
Regarding claim 5, in view of Miozzo the combination teaches that the non-woven material can have a grammage of 5-100 g/m2 (see paragraph 34).
Regarding claim 6, in view of Miozzo the combination teaches that the adhesive layer can be an acrylic adhesive (paragraph 36, 75, 76).
Regarding claim 7, in view of Miozzo the combination teaches that the vegetable parchment can have a grammage of 30-120 g/m2 (see paragraph 81).
Regarding claim 8, in view of Miozzo the combination teaches that the vegetable parchment can have a thickness of 60-150 microns (see paragraph 40).
Regarding claim 9, Boss teaches that the capsule walls 3 can be made from biodegradable materials (see page 8, lines 1-11).
Regarding claim 10, the claim differs from Boss in specifically reciting that wherein the capsule further comprises a top membrane made of biodegradable or compostable materials.
Miozzo has been relied on as already discussed above to teach a biodegradable sealing membrane. Miozzo further teaches that the beverage capsule can comprise a top membrane (see figure 2, item 22) and that the top and bottom membrane can both be made of the same biodegradable materials (see paragraph 55).
To therefore modify Boss and use biodegradable materials for the lidding film would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art for the purpose of making the capsule itself more environmentally friendly.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Aviles (US 9764891), Abegglen (US 20130243911) and in further view of Dogan (WO 2021018616) and Footz (US 20220017294).
Regarding claim 14, Boss already suggests using biodegradable materials for the capsule (see page 8, lines 1-13).
Claim 14 differs from the combination as applied to claim 1 in specifically reciting wherein said opening device is made of a biodegradable material, and said biodegradable material is a polymeric composition, said polymeric composition comprising at least one polymer selected from the group consisting of polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHA).
Aviles also teaches that piercing mechanisms that are positioned within a capsule (see figure 2, item 252; figure 7a and 7b, item 750) and which piercing mechanism can be made from compostable biopolymers (see column 2, lines 20-26).
Abegglen also teaches a beverage producing capsule that comprises an internally positioned opening device (see figure 5, item 9) and which opening device can be made from biodegradable polymers (see paragraph 27). Therefore the prior art teaches that it has been conventional to use biopolymers for interior elements within a beverage capsule, such as opening devices.
While Aviles and Abegglen do not specifically recite that the biodegradable material comprises at least polymer selected from the group consisting of PHA, Dogan616 further teaches that the capsule itself can be made from biodegradable materials such as PHA’s (see page 24, lines 13-31) using known techniques such as thermoforming (see page 25, lines 16-25). Footz further teaches that the capsule itself can be made from biodegradable materials such as PHA and combinations of biodegradable, polymeric material (see paragraph 38) and which can be successfully used in forming processes such as thermoforming (paragraph 90) as well as injection molding (see paragraph 49).
Since the combination already desires to use biodegradable materials, to modify the combination and make the opening device from biodegradable material including a polymeric composition comprising at least one PHA polymer would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art for the purpose of making the capsule itself more environmentally friendly.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 12-14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 12-15 of copending Application No. 18862701 (reference application).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because copending claim 15 teaches a capsule comprising a capsule body defining a chamber with a puncturable top membrane closing a top opening of the capsule and a bottom membrane provided inside the chamber to define between the top membrane and the bottom membrane an ingredient chamber; and an opening device provided inside the chamber and which is adapted to open the chamber by engagement of the opening device with the bottom membrane under the effect of the liquid pressure increase in the ingredient chamber during injection of liquid. The copending claim also teaches that the bottom membrane is a laminated multilayer material comprising successively a vegetable parchment layer, an adhesive layer and a non-woven layer comprising biodegradable fibers and with the vegetable parchment support facing the opening device.
Regarding claim 12, copending claims 12-13 teaches the opening device comprises a plate which comprise opening elements rising from the upper surface of the plate and which are designed to puncture the bottom membrane under the effect of the liquid pressure increase in the ingredient chamber and which opening elements comprise sharp pointed ends. Since the opening elements of the copending claims are designed to puncture the bottom membrane, and in view of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112b, the opening elements are construed to also comprise “sharp pointed end.”
Regarding claim 13, copending claim 14 discloses that the plate of the opening device comprises evacuation holes extending from the upper surface of the plate to the lower surface of the plate and between rising opening elements.
Regarding claim 14, copending claim 15 discloses that the opening device can be made of PHA.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 2-8 and 10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 12-15 of copending Application No. 18862701 as applied above to claim 1 and in further of Miozzo (US 20200216256).
Regarding claim 2, the claim differs from the copending claims in specifically reciting, wherein the biodegradable fibers of the non-woven material layer are selected from the group of fibers consisting of PLA, PHA (polyhydroxyalkanoate), PHB (Poly (hydroxybutyrate)), PHB (V) (poly (hydroxybutyrate- co- hydroxyvalerate)), PBS (poly (butylenesuccinate)), biopolyesters, and cellulose fibers such as cotton, flax, wood fibers and combination thereof.
Regarding claim 3, the claim differs from the combination in specifically reciting, wherein the biodegradable fibers the non-woven material comprises heat-sealable fibers that have a melting point of at least about 100°C.
Regarding claim 4, the claim differs from the combination in specifically reciting, wherein the fibers of the non-woven material are composed exclusively of polylactic acid (PLA)
Miozzo teaches a multilayer laminate sealing membrane comprising an outermost vegetable parchment layer (see figure 1, item 1; paragraph 54) then an adhesive layer (figure 1, item 2; paragraph 54) and a non-woven layer (Figure 1, item 3; paragraph 54) and which non-woven layer comprises biodegradable fibers such as PLA fibers (see paragraph 56-58). Miozzo teaches that the non-woven layer (3) faces the coffee grounds, for instance, for the purpose of providing a filtering effect (see paragraph 54 - last sentence; paragraph 109) and that said non-woven layer can advantageously use PLA fibers because they are biosourced, biodegradable and compostable (paragraph 59). Miozzo further teaches that the non-woven material comprises biodegradable fibers that are heat-sealable fibers that have a melting point of at least about 100°C for providing heat sealability (see paragraph 57) as recited in claim 3 and that the fibers can be composed exclusively of PLA (see paragraph 66 which discloses 100% PLA fibers), as recited in claim 4.
To therefore modify the combination to use PLA fibers would have been obvious for providing a non-woven having the requisite filtering while also being biodegradable and compostable and therefore more environmentally friendly and having the requisite heat sealability of the non-woven layer.
Regarding claim 5, in view of Miozzo the combination teaches that the non-woven material can have a grammage of 5-100 g/m2 (see paragraph 34). Since the copending claims already teach using biodegradable fibers for the non-woven layer, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have used a grammage of 5-100 g/m2 as taught by Miozzo, such as for providing the requisite strength to the non-woven layer.
Regarding claim 6, in view of Miozzo the combination teaches that the adhesive layer can be an acrylic adhesive which is save for food contact (paragraph 36, 75, 76). Since the copending claims teach using an adhesive layer, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use an acrylic adhesive for the purpose of ensuring that the adhesive is safe for food contact.
Regarding claim 7, in view of Miozzo the combination teaches that the vegetable parchment can have a grammage of 30-120 g/m2 (see paragraph 81). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have used a grammage of 30-120 g/m2 as taught by Miozzo, such as for providing the requisite strength to the parchment.
Regarding claim 8, in view of Miozzo the combination teaches that the vegetable parchment can have a thickness of 60-150 microns (see paragraph 40). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have used a thickness of 60-150 as taught by Miozzo, such as for providing the requisite strength to the parchment.
Regarding claim 10, the claim differs from the copending in specifically reciting that wherein the capsule further comprises a top membrane made of biodegradable or compostable materials.
Miozzo has been relied on as already discussed above to teach a biodegradable sealing membrane. Miozzo further teaches that the beverage capsule can comprise a top membrane (see figure 2, item 22) and that the top and bottom membrane can both be made of the same biodegradable materials (see paragraph 55).
To therefore modify the copending claims and use biodegradable materials for the lidding film would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art for the purpose of making the capsule itself more environmentally friendly.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 9 and 11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 12-15 of copending Application No. 18862701 as applied above to claim 1 and in further of Boss (WO 2020120432).
Regarding claim 9, the claim differs from the copending claims in reciting that the capsule body is made of biodegradable or compostable materials.
Boss teaches that the capsule walls 3 can be made from biodegradable materials (see page 8, lines 1-11).
To therefore modify the copending claims and use biodegradable materials for the capsule body would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art for the purpose of making the capsule itself more environmentally friendly.
Claim 11 differs from the copending claims in specifically reciting that the ingredient chamber contains roast and ground coffee.
Boss teaches a capsule with an internal opening device that opens a bottom membrane via pressure and which capsule comprises roast and ground coffee in an ingredient chamber positioned between the bottom membrane and a top membrane that closes an opening to the capsule and which ingredient chamber contains roast and ground coffee (see at least, page 7, lines 1-2 and page 9, line 28).
Since the bottom membrane and opening device of Boss and the copending claims operates in a similar manner, to therefore modify the copending claims to specifically contain roast and ground coffee would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, as a matter of engineering and/or design.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
MacMahon (US 20090004335), teaches a capsule that comprises a dispersion plate that can be made from biodegradable materials such as polyester amide, PLA, starch based polymers, cellulose derivatives and polypeptides (see paragraph 141).
Talon (US 20180141747) teaches a capsule comprising a capsule body (figure 2, item 12), a top membrane (figure 2, item 10), a pierceable bottom membrane (figure 2, item 18) and ground coffee between the top and bottom membrane (paragraph 16) and an opening device positioned inside the chamber and adapted to open the chamber by relative engagement of the opening device with the bottom membrane (see paragraph 73). Talon further teaches that the capsule body can be made from biodegradable material (see paragraph 70), while still allowing for the requisite pressure to be generated within the capsule for opening the bottom membrane against the opening device.
Sandherr (US 20230202746) teaches a sealing membrane of a beverage producing capsule (paragraph 46), which seal can be biodegradable (see paragraph 22 and paragraph 128) and which seal can be a multilayer laminate of, successively, a parchment paper, then an adhesive and then a non-woven fabric layer and where the non-woven fabric layer faces the chamber containing beverage ingredients such as ground coffee (see paragraphs 131-136; paragraph 46). Sandherr further teaches that the capsule is openable under the effect of a rise in pressure (see paragraph 47).
Bardet (US 20240400280) teaches a biodegradable sealing membrane comprising a vegetable parchment layer as the outer most layer (see figure 1B) and then an adhesive layer and followed by a non-woven layer closest to the beverage ingredients (see figure 1B, where thermoplastic impregnated cellulosic non-woven would have resulted in an adhesive layer between the non-woven and the vegetable parchment (see figure 4A). Bardet teaches that the vegetable parchment is positioned adjacent a perforation plate (see figure 1B) and that the non-woven provides a filtering function (paragraph 42). Bardet teaches that such a sealing membrane that can provide barrier properties (see paragraph 94) and the requisite support during high pressure deformation (paragraph 90) while also providing a filtering function and being more environmentally friendly due to its compostability and biodegradability (see paragraph 1 and 9).
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 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.
/VIREN A THAKUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights