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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 5, paragraph 29 uses reference character 105 to refer to both “an annulus” and “grounds.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the specification refers to “an annulus” on page 5, paragraph 29, but uses reference character 105 to refer to both “an annulus” and “grounds.” Therefore the figures are not clear as to what is being referred to as an annulus.
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(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 1-18 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, line 5; Claim 9, line 5 and claim 13, line 5 all recites, “a hemispherical filter end extending downwardly therefrom.” It is not clear what “a hemispherical filter” is extending downwardly from. That is, it is not clear as to what the term, “therefrom” is modifying, the “filter” in general, specifically the “elongated body” or the chamber, for example.
Claims 2-8, 10-12 and 14-18 are rejected based on their dependence to a rejected claim.
Claims 5, 11 and 15 recites that “the opening has a diameter approximately 1.4 inches in diameter.” Applicant’s specification defines “approximately” to include being +/- 10% of the stated value (see page 3, paragraph 17). As such, this limitation is indefinite because it depends from claim 4, which already recites that the opening is approximately 1 inch in diameter. Therefore it is not clear as to how an opening with a diameter of approximately 1 inch can then have a diameter of approximately 1.4 inches.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Scrivani (US 20110283890).
Regarding claims 1, 7 and 8, Scrivani discloses a single serving coffee cup pod (see figure 2 and 3, item 2), which comprises a generally cylindrical frame (see figure 2 and 3 where one step can be construed as a generally cylindrical frame that extends “a length” of the pod. That is, the claim does not recite that the frame the entire length of the pod.
Applicant’s specification at paragraph 15 defines “generally” to mean “without regard to particulars or exceptions” and in view of this, Scrivani is seen to disclose a frame that can be construed as generally cylindrical. It is also noted that a single step of the frame has a vertically extending wall such that it can also be construed as generally cylindrical. See annotated figure 3 below:
PNG
media_image1.png
359
640
media_image1.png
Greyscale
There is a base attached to the frame, such as near figure 1, item 6 that forms a chamber within which a filter (figure 3 and figure 2, item 3) is located. See annotated figure 3 above.
The filter has an elongated body since it extends for a length as shown in figure 3 and there is a hemispherical end at part of the lower portion of the filter. There is also an opening formed in the cover 13 can be removed from the bottom of the pod (see paragraph 44).
Regarding claim 7, Scrivani discloses that there are coffee grounds in the filter (see paragraph 28 and 45 disclosing coffee powder used for extracting a beverage).
Regarding claim 8, Scrivani discloses that the base forms an annulus around the opening as shown in figure 3.
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, 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rivera (US 20160157660) in view of Trombetta (US 20210009342).
Regarding claim 1, Rivera teaches a single serving coffee cup pod (see figure 6), comprising a frame that could be construed as being “generally” cylindrical (figure 6, item 52; paragraph 25, “frustoconical”), in light of Applicant’s disclosure at paragraph 15 defining “generally” to mean “without regard to particulars or exceptions.”
Rivera further teaches a base attached to the frame (see figure 6 and to the left and right of base aperture 54; paragraph 36) and a filter having an elongated body with a hemispherical filter end extending downwardly, located in the chamber (see figure 6, item 42).
Rivera further discloses that there is an opening formed in the base (see figure 6, item 54 and paragraph 36: “base aperture 54”).
If it could have been construed that claim 1 and 13 differed from Rivera in specifically reciting that the frame is “generally cylindrical” then it is noted that Trombetta further teaches that it has been conventional to use a frustoconical type frame within which is positioned an elongated filter with a hemispherical end (see figure 9) as well as a cylindrical frame with a filter comprising a hemispherical end (see figure 11).
Rivera teaches that the frame can take any other shape (see paragraph 25, 4th sentence). To therefore modify Rivera to use a cylindrical frame, as taught by Trombetta would therefore have been an obvious substitution of one conventional shape for a frame used to house a filter, for another, both recognized for the same purpose of securing a filter therein.
Regarding claim 7, Rivera teaches that the filter contains brewing material (see paragraph 24), which Rivera teaches is known in the art to comprise ground coffee (see paragraph 3). This is further supported by Trombetta at paragraph 46. To therefore modify Rivera if necessary and to specifically locate coffee grounds within Rivera’s filter would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art based on conventional expedients for brewing materials placed within single serving coffee cup pods that comprise a filter for holding brewing materials.
Regarding claim 8, Rivera teaches that the base forms an annulus around the opening (see figure 6, to the left and right of item 54; and figure 8A). That is, since Rivera teaches a generally cylindrical frame with a frustoconical base (see paragraph 25, “frustoconical”), and an opening positioned radially interior to the base, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the base forms an annulus around the opening.
PNG
media_image2.png
640
462
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 2, 3, 13, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rivera (US 20160157660) in view of Trombetta (US 20210009342) and in further view of Dran (US 20120201933) and Scrivani (US 20110283890).
Claims 2-3 differ from the combination as applied to claim 1 in specifically reciting, a cover attached to the base and extending across the opening (claim 2) and wherein the cover is removable from the base, the cover having a tab, the cover being removable from the opening by pulling the tab (claim 3).
Dran teaches a single serving coffee cup pod comprising a generally cylindrical frame extending a length of the pod (see figure 1, item 60). There is a base attached to the frame (see figure 2, item 32) and forming a chamber, and a filter within the chamber (see figure 2, item 24). There is an opening in the base which is closed by a cover comprising a tab used for removing the cover from the base (see figure 2, item 34, 36). Dran teaches that the seals (32) and (34) are obviously used to keep the contents fresh and free of contaminants and that the cover (34) is to be removed prior to use (see paragraph 31). Scrivani teaches a cover attached to the base of the single serving coffee cup and which cover comprises a tab (see figure 1 and 2, item 8 and 13 and paragraph 44) for the purpose of preventing exposure to air and contaminants (see paragraph 38).
Since Rivera teaches an opening at the bottom of the pod, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified Rivera and attached a cover comprising a tab for the purpose of sealing the underside of Rivera’s open pod prior to use and for facilitating removing of the cover for using the pod to produce a beverage.
Regarding claim 13, the claim repeats the limitations of claims 1, 2 and 8 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claims 1, 2 and 8.
Regarding claim 17, the claim repeats the limitations of claim 7 and therefore is further rejected for the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 7.
Regarding claim 18, the claim repeats the limitations of claim 3 and therefore is further rejected for the reasons given above with respect to claim 3.
Claim 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination as applied to claim 1 and 13 above, which relies on Rivera (US 20160157660) as the primary reference, and in further view of Koller (US 20140272018).
Claim 4 and 14 differ from the combination as applied to claim 1 in specifically reciting, wherein the opening is approximately 1 inch in diameter.
Koller teaches a dispensing opening that can be between 20-50mm (see paragraph 55), which equates to 0.78 to 1.96 inches.
Since Rivera is not limiting as to the particular size of the opening, to modify Rivera and to provide an opening with a diameter that falls within the range of 0.78 to 1.96 inches would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as an obvious matter of engineering and/or design.
Claim 5-6 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination as applied to claim 4 and 14 above, which relies on Rivera (US 20160157660) as the primary reference, and in further view of Garcin (US 20160362246) or Andrews (WO 2018026280).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, it is initially noted that the claims are not clear as discussed above under 35 U.S.C. 112b.
Nonetheless, Garcin also teaches that a diameter of the base can be for example, 35.5 mm (see paragraph 35), which equates to about 1.4inches.
Andrews teaches a dispensing end of a beverage capsule having an opening diameter of 33-35mm (see page 52, lines 1-10 and Figure 109A, Item D1).
To therefore modify Rivera to have a base diameter that is 35.5mm would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, as a matter of engineering and/or design, such as for being able to accommodate Rivera’s pod onto a particular beverage preparation machine.
Claim 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination as applied to claim 1 and 13 above, which relies on Rivera (US 20160157660) as the primary reference, and in further view of Garcin (US 20160362246).
Claims 6 and 16 differ from the combination as applied to claims 1 and 13 in specifically reciting, wherein a ratio of an area of the opening to an area of the frame at the base is about 0.5:1.
Garcin teaches single serving coffee cup pod having a base (figure 9, item 9, 32) with an opening therein (see figure 9, item 33) and where the area of the cavity opening (i.e. the opening bound by the pod side walls - see paragraph 75, “The cavity opening is generally demarcated by an internal peripheral edge 9 forming the junction between the side wall 5 and the flange 7) is twice the area of the opening 33 (see paragraph 104)
Garcin teaches that these dimensions allow for a sealing film (10) to be sealed to the outlet of the pod (see paragraph 96-98).
To therefore modify the combination, which already desires to seal the opening positioned within the base, and to use a ratio of the area of base that is twice the area of the opening would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, for achieving the desired sealing of the cover to the base.
Claim 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination as applied to claim 1 and 13 above, which relies on Rivera (US 20160157660) as the primary reference, and in further view of Garcin (US 20160362246) and in further view of Yoakam (US 20120251677).
Claims 6 and 16 differ from the combination as applied to claims 1 and 13 in specifically reciting, wherein a ratio of an area of the opening to an area of the frame at the base is about 0.5:1.
Garcin also teaches that a diameter of the base can be for example, 35.5 mm (see paragraph 35).
To therefore modify Rivera to have a base diameter that is 35.5mm would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, as a matter of engineering and/or design, such as for being able to accommodate Rivera’s pod onto a particular beverage preparation machine.
While the above combination does not specifically recite a ratio of an area of the opening to an area of the frame at the base is about 0.5:1, Yoakim teaches a sealing radius of 1-5mm for the purpose of sealing a closure film to an opening of a single serve pod (see paragraph 109 and figure 1a, item R). Since Garcin already teaches that a diameter of a base can be 35.5mm, in view of Yoakim, the combination is suggesting an opening having a diameter of 25.5mm (i.e 35.5 - 2x5mm). In view of this, the combination is suggesting a ratio of an area of the opening to the area of the frame at the base of 510mm2/989mm2 = 0.51.
To therefore modify Rivera and to use a ratio of the area of the opening to an area of the base of the frame be 0.51 would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, for the purpose of providing the requisite sealing width for covering the opening with a cover.
Since Rivera already teaches a base with an opening, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified Rivera and to have dimensioned Rivera’s base such that it has an area that is twice the area of the opening, for the purpose of providing the requisite surface area for sealing a closure film thereto.
Claim 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination as applied to claim 1 and 13 above, which relies on Rivera (US 20160157660) as the primary reference, and in further view of Abegglen (US 20130309371).
Claims 6 and 16 differ from the combination as applied to claims 1 and 13 in specifically reciting, wherein a ratio of an area of the opening to an area of the frame at the base is about 0.5:1.
Abegglen teaches a base of a capsule that is covered by a sealing film, and which base can have a diameter of 50-70mm (see paragraph 98). Abegglen further teaches annular rim at the base, that can extend outward by 2-10mm (see figure 2, item R). This is the surface to which a sealing membrane has been secured (see paragraph 49, 89 and figure 2, item 4). Abegglen thus teaches a base with an area that is 3848mm2 (i.e. when the base has a diameter of 70mm). If the annular rim has a width of 10mm, this would suggest that the opening would have had a diameter of 70-2x10mm or 50mm, which results in an area of the opening of 1963mm2. The ratio between the area of the opening and the area of the base would therefore have been 0.51.
To therefore modify the combination, which already desires to seal the opening positioned within the base, and to use a ratio of the area of base to the area of the opening of 0.51 would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, for achieving the desired sealing of the cover to the base.
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination as applied to claim 1 and 13 above, which relies on Rivera (US 20160157660) as the primary reference, and in further view of Andrews (US 20200223622) and Schifferle (US 20050150390).
Claims 6 and 16 differ from the combination as applied to claims 1 and 13 in specifically reciting, wherein a ratio of an area of the opening to an area of the frame at the base is about 0.5:1.
Andrews teaches single serving coffee cup pod having a base (figure 1, item 3) with a diameter of 28mm (see paragraph 10) and having an opening therein (see figure 1b, item 5), which is large enough to prevent the formation of crema (paragraph 24). Andrews teaches that it is pressure that causes the generation of crema (paragraph 4) and to prevent this pressurization, is desirable in order to provide an unpressurized filtration that produces a beverage without foam (see paragraph 5).
Schifferle also teaches preventing a hydraulic pressure build-up in a beverage cartridge, by providing a diameter to an opening in the base of the pod that prevents substantial resistance to flow (see paragraph 10 and figure 1, item 20).
Therefore, to modify Rivera to adjust the particular size of the opening and therefore the ratio of an area of the base to an area of the opening would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that there is no pressure generated within the capsule (i.e. back pressure) would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art for the purpose of preventing the generation of crema when making Rivera’s coffee beverage.
Claims 9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rivera (US 20160157660) in view of Trombetta (US 20210009342) and in further view of Dran (US 20120201933) and Scrivani (US 20110283890) and in further view of Andrews (US 20200223622) and Schifferle (US 20050150390), and in further view of Abegglen (US 20130309371), Garcin (US 20160362246) and Yoakim (US 20120251677).
Regarding claim 9, Rivera teaches a single serving coffee cup pod (see figure 6), comprising a frame that could be construed as being “generally” cylindrical (figure 6, item 52; paragraph 25, “frustoconical”) in light of Applicant’s disclosure at paragraph 15 defining “generally” to mean “without regard to particulars or exceptions.”
Rivera further teaches a base attached to the frame (see figure 6 and to the left and right of base aperture 54; paragraph 36) and a filter having an elongated body with a hemispherical filter end extending downwardly, located in the chamber (see figure 6, item 42).
Rivera further discloses that there is an opening formed in the base (see figure 6, item 54 and paragraph 36: “base aperture 54”).
If it could have been construed that claim 9 differed from Rivera in specifically reciting that the frame is “generally cylindrical” then it is noted that Trombetta further teaches that it has been conventional to use a frustoconical type frame within which is positioned an elongated filter with a hemispherical end (see figure 9) as well as a cylindrical frame with a filter comprising a hemispherical end (see figure 11).
Rivera teaches that the frame can take any other shape (see paragraph 25, 4th sentence). To therefore modify Rivera to use a cylindrical frame, as taught by Trombetta would therefore have been an obvious substitution of one conventional shape for a frame used to house a filter, for another, both recognized for the same purpose of securing a filter therein.
Claim 9 differs from the Rivera/Trombetta combination in specifically reciting, a removable cover provided across the opening, the cover having a tab, the cover removable from the opening by pulling the tab.
Dran teaches a single serving coffee cup pod comprising a generally cylindrical frame extending a length of the pod (see figure 1, item 60). There is a base attached to the frame (see figure 2, item 32) and forming a chamber, and a filter within the chamber (see figure 2, item 24). There is an opening the base which is closed by a cover comprising a tab used for removing the cover from the base (see figure 2, item 34, 36). Dran teaches that the seals (32) and (34) are obviously used to keep the contents fresh and free of contaminants and that the cover (34) is to be removed prior to use (see paragraph 31). Scrivani teaches a cover attached to the base of the single serving coffee cup and which cover comprises a tab (see figure 1 and 2, item 8 and 13 and paragraph 44) for the purpose of preventing exposure to air and contaminants (see paragraph 38).
Since Rivera teaches an opening at the bottom of the pod, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified Rivera and attached a cover comprising a tab for the purpose of sealing the underside of Rivera’s open pod prior to use and for facilitating removing of the cover for using the pod to produce a beverage.
Claim 9 also differs from the above combination in specifically reciting, wherein a ratio of an area of the opening to an area of the frame at the base is about 0.5:1.
Andrews teaches single serving coffee cup pod having a base (figure 1, item 3) with a diameter of 28mm (see paragraph 10) and having an opening therein (see figure 1b, item 5), which is large enough to prevent the formation of crema (paragraph 24). Andrews teaches that it is pressure that causes the generation of crema (paragraph 4) and to prevent this pressurization, is desirable in order to provide an unpressurized filtration that produces a beverage without foam (see paragraph 5).
Schifferle also teaches preventing a hydraulic pressure build-up in a beverage cartridge, by providing a diameter to an opening in the base of the pod that prevents substantial resistance to flow (see paragraph 10 and figure 1, item 20).
Therefore, to modify Rivera to adjust the particular size of the opening and therefore the ratio of an area of the base to an area of the opening would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that there is no pressure generated within the capsule (i.e. back pressure) would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art for the purpose of preventing the generation of crema when making Rivera’s coffee beverage.
Further regarding the claimed ratio, Abegglen teaches a base of a capsule that is covered by a sealing film, and which base can have a diameter of 50-70mm (see paragraph 98). Abegglen further teaches annular rim at the base, that can extend outward by 2-10mm (see figure 2, item R). This is the surface to which a sealing membrane has been secured (see paragraph 49, 89 and figure 2, item 4). Abegglen thus teaches a base with an area that is 3848mm2 (i.e. when the base has a diameter of 70mm). If the annular rim has a width of 10mm, this would suggest that the opening would have had a diameter of 70-2x10mm or 50mm, which results in an area of the opening of 1963mm2. The ratio between the area of the opening and the area of the base would therefore have been 0.51.
To therefore modify the combination, which already desires to seal the opening positioned within the base, and to use a ratio of the area of base to the area of the opening of 0.51 would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, for achieving the desired sealing of the cover to the base.
Garcin teaches single serving coffee cup pod having a base (figure 9, item 9, 32) with an opening therein (see figure 9, item 33) and where the area of the cavity opening (i.e. the opening bound by the pod side walls - see paragraph 75, “The cavity opening is generally demarcated by an internal peripheral edge 9 forming the junction between the side wall 5 and the flange 7) is twice the area of the opening 33 (see paragraph 104)
Garcin teaches that these dimensions allow for a sealing film (10) to be sealed to the outlet of the pod (see paragraph 96-98).
To therefore modify the combination, which already desires to seal the opening positioned within the base, and to use a ratio of the area of base that is twice the area of the opening would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, for achieving the desired sealing of the cover to the base.
Alternatively, Garcin also teaches that a diameter of the base can be for example, 35.5 mm (see paragraph 35) such that it would have been obvious to one having oirndary skill in the art to modify Rivera to have a base diameter that is 35.5mm as a matter of engineering and/or design, such as for being able to accommodate Rivera’s pod onto a particular beverage preparation machine. While this teaching does not specifically recite a ratio of an area of the opening to an area of the frame at the base is about 0.5:1, Yoakim teaches a sealing radius of 1-5mm for the purpose of sealing a closure film to an opening of a single serve pod (see paragraph 109 and figure 1a, item R). Since Garcin already teaches that a diameter of a base can be 35.5mm, in view of Yoakim, the combination is suggesting an opening having a diameter of 25.5mm (i.e 35.5 - 2x5mm). In view of this, the combination is suggesting a ratio of an area of the opening to the area of the frame at the base of 510mm2/989mm2 = 0.51.
To therefore modify Rivera and to use a ratio of the area of the opening to an area of the base of the frame be 0.51 would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, for the purpose of providing the requisite sealing width for covering the opening with a cover.
Since Rivera already teaches a base with an opening, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified Rivera and to have dimensioned Rivera’s base such that it has an area that is twice the area of the opening, for the purpose of providing the requisite surface area for sealing a closure film thereto.
Regarding claim 12, Rivera teaches that the base forms an annulus around the opening (see figure 6, to the left and right of item 54; and figure 8). That is, since Rivera teaches a generally cylindrical frame with a base (see paragraph 25, “frustoconical”, and an opening positioned radially interior to the base, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the base forms an annulus around the opening.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination as applied to claim 9 above, which relies on Rivera (US 20160157660) as the primary reference, and in further view of Koller (US 20140272018).
Claim 10 differs from the combination as applied to claim 9 in specifically reciting, wherein the opening is approximately 1 inch in diameter.
Koller teaches a dispensing opening that can be between 20-50mm (see paragraph 55), which equates to 0.78 to 1.96 inches.
Since Rivera is not limiting as to the particular size of the opening, to modify Rivera and to provide an opening with a diameter that falls within the range of 0.78 to 1.96 inches would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as an obvious matter of engineering and/or design.
Claim 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination as applied to claim 10 above, which relies on Rivera (US 20160157660) as the primary reference, and in further view of Garcin (US 20160362246) or Andrews (WO 2018026280).
Regarding claim 11, it is initially noted that the claim is not clear as discussed above under 35 U.S.C. 112b.
Nonetheless, Garcin also teaches that a diameter of the base can be for example, 35.5 mm (see paragraph 35), which equates to about 1.4inches.
Andrews teaches a dispensing end of a beverage capsule having an opening diameter of 33-35mm (see page 52, lines 1-10 and Figure 109A, Item D1).
To therefore modify Rivera to have a base diameter that is 35.5mm would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, as a matter of engineering and/or design, such as for being able to accommodate Rivera’s pod onto a particular beverage preparation machine.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kruger (US 20160001968) discloses a capsule with a base with an opening that is closed by a cover (see figure 5, item 13, 15).
Bogatzki (DE 202012101513) discloses a capsule with a generally cylindrical frame (figure 2A) that has a base and an opening formed in the base (figure 2A). Bogatzki also discloses a filter within the chamber formed by the base and the frame (see figure 8D-8G).
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