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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120 as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosures of the prior-filed applications 62/258,561, 62/692,781, PCT/US2016/063702, PCT/US2019/039853, 15/778610, 17/251629, 17/141839, 17/871957, fail to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. Therefore the specifications of the above prior-filed applications provide no support for a beverage cartridge to biodegradable and/or home compostable or formed from biomatter that would be formed into a bioplastic composition. Therefore the application is not entitled to the priority date of any of the prior-filed applications and the filing date is 21 October 2024.
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 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai US 2019/0328170 in view of Roumeli et al. US 2024/0076478.
Regarding claim 1, Cai discloses a beverage cartridge (pod 100A) comprising a cartridge body (container 88) (paragraph [0062] and fig. 1G) containing coffee (paragraph [0008]). There is a sealing lid system having a protruding lid (23) hinged by a hinge member (190) to the cartridge body (paragraph [0070]). A sealing geometry received in an upper receiving surface of the cartridge body provides a water-tight and an air-tight sealing engagement (to prevent leakage of air and fluid) therewith to seal the beverage cartridge before a use (paragraph [0070]), said cartridge body has a bottom (27) at least a portion of which is flat (fig. 1G), and said cartridge body has a flat lip (rim 28) extending from said upper receiving surface away from an axial center of said cartridge body. The protruding lid (23) has a completing lid lip (98) extending from said protruding lid that aligns with said flat lip of said cartridge body during said water- tight and said air-tight sealing engagement (paragraph [070]), and said cartridge body has at least one side wall (29) that is tapered relative to said protruding lid (fig. 1G). Cai further discloses the beverage cartridge would be made from polypropylene (paragraph [0074]) a petroleum based petrochemical.
Claim 1 differs from Cai in the cartridge body and said sealing lid system each being a biocomposite comprising a biomatter and a polymer.
Roumeli discloses that 1 kg of polypropylene is reported to have a global warming potential of 2.0 kg of CO2. (paragraph [0005]) and that it is becoming common and desirable in order to reduce petroleum dependency/global warming potential, reduce plastic pollution, and reduce the environmental concerns related thereto (paragraph [0004]) to employ biomatter based bioplastics which are biodegradable and home compostable (backyard compostable) (paragraph [0035]) combined with commercial polymers such as polypropylene in the manufacture of food packaging (paragraph [0041]) which are applicant’s reasons for doing so as well.
Roumeli also discloses that the biomatter would comprise about 0.01 wt% to about 99.99 wt% of the biocomposite and the polymer would comprise about 0.01 wt% to about 99.99 wt% of the biocomposite (paragraph [0115], clause 18.). Further the biomatter formed into a bioplastic composition would be selected from at least one of Spirulina sp, alpha cellulose, glucomannan, powdered wood from Douglas fir, agai, coffee beans, dragon fruit, matcha powder, Chlorella vulgaris, Saccharine latissima, or Ulva sp. (paragraph [0115], clause 19) and the polymer would comprise at least one of poly(lactic acid) (PLA), polybutylene adipate terephthalate (PBAT), polyethylene oxide (PEO), polycaprolactone (PCL), poly(3-hydroxybutyrateco-3-hydroxyvalerate) (PHBV), lignin, pine gum, bovine serum albumin (BSA), gluten, casein, lactoglobulin, or lysozyme (paragraph [0115], clause 20.). To therefore modify Cai and employ the biodegradable and home compostable biomatter bioplastic compositions to reduce petroleum dependency/global warming potential, reduce plastic pollution, and reduce the environmental concerns as taught by Roumeli to make the beverage cartridge and sealing lid system would have been an obvious matter of choice and/or design to the ordinarily skilled artisan.
Regarding claim 3, the limitation “said bioplastic composition is formed by one of a thermoforming, a heat extruding, a hot-pressing, and an injection molding” 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. See 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 Cai in view of Roumeli discloses said bioplastic composition is formed by one of a thermoforming, a heat extruding, a hot-pressing, and an injection molding (paragraph [0115], clause 8.).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai US 2019/0328170 in view of Roumeli et al. US 2024/0076478 in view of Oosterhof US 2021/0015118.
Claim 2 differs from Cai in view of Roumeli in the bioplastic composition further is constructed from mycelium. Oosterhof discloses that when making a biodegradable or compostable container (paragraph [0009]) the biodegradable material can be formed with the aid of mycelia as a relatively inexpensive, eco-friendly packaging, and formed into any desirable shape. Further the use of mycelium in the biodegradable material causes the material to biodegrade at an incredible rate and can be composted at home (paragraph [0056]) all of which are applicant’s reasons for including mycelium as well. To therefore modify Cai in view of Roumeli and include mycelium in the bioplastic composition as taught by Oosterhoff would have been an obvious matter of design and/or choice to the ordinarily skilled artisan.
Conclusion
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 17 August 2026
/VIREN A THAKUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights