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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06 March 2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 21 has been provided with the status identifier (New) which is incorrect since the claim was previously added in applicant’s response dated 26 November 2026. The correct status identifier therefore should be (Previously Presented). In the interest of furthering prosecution the incorrect status identifier has been noted here for correction and a notice of non-compliant amendment has not been sent.
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, and 17 – 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krüger US 2011/0142996 in view of Kuo et al. US 2022/0033173 in view of Roberts et al. US 2017/0055761.
Regarding claim 1, Krüger discloses a beverage pod (capsule 1) which comprises a cavity (3) comprised of a beverage pod shell (base element 2), wherein the beverage pod shell comprises one or more detents (channels 15 . . . partly interrupted) capable of interlocking with one or more beverage pods. There is a filter disc (element 5) disposed within the cavity, a formed filter material (5’) is adhered to an interior surface of the cavity (weld connection), a beverage material (coffee powder) within the formed filter material, and there is an airtight lid (membrane 4) sealing the filter disc, the formed filter material, and the beverage material within the cavity (paragraph [0024]). Krüger discloses the detents to be partly interrupted circumferential, i.e., curved channels (A plurality of channels 15 are made in the wall region 12, the said channels being designed in the form of substantially circumferential grooves) (paragraph [0024]) which is to say the one or more detents disclosed by Krüger are combined with a curved channel.
In the event that claim 1 can be construed as differing from Krüger in the beverage pod shell in that the interrupted channels would not comprise one or more detents Kuo discloses a beverage pod which comprises a cavity comprising a beverage pod shell. A filter disc in the form of a formed filter material (12) is disposed within an interior surface of the cavity, a beverage material (coffee bean grounds) (paragraph [0094]) is within the formed filter material and an airtight lid (10 is made from aluminium foil) seals the filter disc, the formed filter material, and the beverage material within the cavity (paragraph [0095]). Further the beverage pod shell comprises one or more detents (244, 342, 246) that are capable of interlocking with one or more beverage pods (paragraph [0091] and fig. 1a and 1b). Kuo is teaching detents that would be capable of interlocking with one or more beverage pods for the art recognized function of nesting, that is interlocking one or more of said beverage pod shells in order to ensure that respective shells interconnected shells can be one-by-one accurately drawn out by automatically component-picking equipment of a component assembling production line thereby raising fabricating efficiency which is applicant’s reason for doing so as well (paragraph [0008]). To therefore modify Krüger if necessary and provide the beverage pod shell with one or more detents as taught by Kuo to raise fabricating efficiency would have been an obvious matter of choice and/or design to the ordinarily skilled artisan.
Claim 1 differs from Krüger in view of Kuo in the cavity comprises a polymeric coating of a co-extruded polypropylene which coating is such that the polymeric coating is positioned between the aluminium layer and a formed filter material.
Roberts discloses a beverage pod (receptacle 110) which comprises a cavity comprised of a beverage pod shell, which beverage pod shell, a beverage material (frozen contents) is within the cavity, and an airtight lid (118) is sealing the beverage material in said cavity (paragraph [0091]). Roberts also discloses the cavity would comprise a polymeric coating of a polypropylene thereon disposed directly on an interior surface of the aluminium layer and that by doing so the cavity (receptacles) would not retain filter material or other materials that would prevent the beverage pod from being easily recycled (paragraph [0209]) making it obvious that the polymeric coating is positioned between the aluminium layer and a formed filter material. Roberts further discloses that the polymeric coating would provide a welding surface for the airtight lid (paragraph [0243]). Roberts is using a polypropylene coating to coat the interior of the beverage pod (aluminium receptacle) for the art recognized purpose of enhancing food safety, eliminating the possibility of chemical reactions between the beverage pod and the contained food, as well as to provide a welding surface for the heat-sealed lid all of which are applicant’s reasons for doing so as well. To therefore modify Krüger in view of Kuo and apply a polymeric coating of polypropylene to the cavity as taught by Roberts would have been an obvious matter of choice and/or design.
Further regarding claim 1, The limitation “co-extruded” is a method limitation and does not determine the patentability of the product, unless the process produces unexpected results. The method of forming the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself, unless Applicant presents evidence from which the Examiner could reasonably conclude that the claimed product differs in kind from those of the prior art. MPEP 2113. Furthermore, there does not appear to be a difference between the prior art structure and the structure resulting from the claimed method because Krüger in view of Kuo in view of Roberts discloses the cavity comprises a polymeric coating of polypropylene.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, once it was known to provide the beverage pod shell with detents it is not seen that patentability would be predicated on the particular shape of said detents. The particular shape of the detents would be an obvious matter of choice which the ordinarily skilled artisan would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant (MPEP § 2144.04 IV.B.).
Regarding claims 17 and 18, the limitations “the one or more detents are stamped into the beverage pod shell on one or more surfaces” and “the one or more detents are accomplished by adding material to a surface of the beverage pod shell” respectively are method limitations and do not determine the patentability of the product, unless the processes would produce unexpected results. The method of forming the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself, unless Applicant presents evidence from which the Examiner could reasonably conclude that the claimed product differs in kind from those of the prior art. MPEP 2113. Furthermore, there does not appear to be a difference between the prior art structure and the structure resulting from the claimed method because Krüger in view of Kuo discloses the beverage pod shell comprises one or more detents on one or more surfaces.
Regarding claim 19, Krüger in view of Kuo in view of Roberts disclose the airtight lid would be sealed with a frangible seal (119) (‘761, paragraph [0091]). Krüger in view of Kuo in view of Roberts are providing a frangible seal on the airtight lid to allow for manual removal of the lid to access the contents contained therein without the need for perforation which is applicant’s reason for doing so as well and it therefore would have been an obvious matter of design and/or choice to provide said seal to allow the user to peel the airtight lid from the beverage pod shell.
Claims 4, 6 – 8, and 10 – 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krüger US 2011/0142996 in view of Kuo et al. US 2022/0033173 in view of Roberts US 2017/0055761 as further evidenced by Gerbaulet et al. US 2019/0225411, Biondi et al. US 2023/0348124, and Golding US 2013/0032602.
Regarding claim 4, Krüger in view of Kuo in view of Roberts disclose the beverage pod shell comprises an exterior surface and an interior surface capable of interlocking with one or more other beverage pods when stacked and that the beverage pod shell would be comprised of aluminium to create a long lasting storage package for preserving freshness and aroma of the contained beverage material (‘761, paragraph [0104]) thereby making it obvious to have comprised the beverage pod shell of aluminium. Gerbaulet (paragraph [0020]), Biondi (paragraph [0063]), and Golding (paragraph [0013]) all provide further evidence that it was well established in the art to provide beverage pod shells comprising an aluminium material.
Regarding claim 6, Krüger in view of Kuo, in view of Roberts as further evidenced by Gerbaulet, Biondi, and Golding disclose the exterior surface of the beverage pod shell would comprise the one or more detents, wherein the one or more detents are capable of interlocking with a complimentary interior surface of a second beverage pod shell and the complimentary interior surface comprises one or more recesses (‘996, fig. 1 – 3) (‘173, fig. 1a).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Krüger in view of Kuo, in view of Roberts as further evidenced by Gerbaulet, Biondi, and Golding disclose the one or more detents and the one or more recesses are in a straight alignment (‘996, fig. 1 – 3) (‘173, fig. 1a). Further regarding claim 8 since Krüger in view of Kuo, in view of Roberts as further evidenced by Gerbaulet, Biondi, and Golding disclose the detents would be made from partly interrupted channels (‘996, paragraph [0024]) it would have been obvious to have configured the detents in a staggered alignment. Further still, it is not seen that the particular alignment of the detents would modify the operation of the beverage pod shell and as such configuring the detents in a staggered alignment would have been an obvious matter of design and/or choice to the ordinarily skilled artisan (MPEP § 2144.04 VI.C.).
Regarding claim 10, Krüger in view of Kuo, in view of Roberts as further evidenced by Gerbaulet, Biondi, and Golding disclose the interior surface of the beverage pod shell comprises one or more detents (pits 246), wherein the one or more detents would be capable of interlocking with a complimentary exterior surface of a second beverage pod shell, wherein the complimentary exterior surface comprises one or more recesses (342) (‘173, paragraph [0024] and fig. 1a and 1c).
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected for the same reasons given above in the rejections of claims 7 and 8.
Claims 5, 9, and 13 – 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krüger US 2011/0142996 in view of Kuo et al. US 2022/0033173 in view of Roberts et al. US 2017/0055761 as further evidenced by Gerbaulet et al. US 2019/0225411, Biondi et al. US 2023/0348124, and Golding US 2013/0032602 as further evidenced by Husband et al. US 2014/0178538 as further evidenced by Wicks US 2019/0002192.
Regarding claim 14, Krüger in view of Kuo, in view of Roberts as further evidenced by Gerbaulet, Biondi, and Golding disclose the exterior surface comprises a first set of circumferential beads (channels 15) that would be capable of interlocking with a complimentary interior surface of a second beverage pod. Since the surface of a second pod would be the same as the surface of the first pod it is seen that the complimentary interior surface would comprise a second set of circumferential beads (‘996, fig. 1 – 3). Husband provides further evidence that it was well established and conventional in the art to provide the exterior surface of a beverage pod shell with a first set of circumferential beads (helical portion 42) that would be capable of interlocking with a complimentary interior surface of a second beverage pod (paragraph [0019] and fig. 3). Wicks provides further evidence that it was well established and conventional in the art to provide the exterior surface of a beverage pod shell with a first set of circumferential beads (screw thread 551) that would be capable of interlocking with a complimentary interior surface of a second beverage pod (screw thread 550) (paragraph [0080] and fig. 5). Therefore, given the art taken as a whole, it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan to have provided a first set of circumferential beads capable of interlocking with a complimentary interior surface of a second beverage pod, where the complimentary interior surface has a second set of circumferential beads.
Regarding claims 5, 9, 13, and 15, once it was known to provide a first set of circumferential beads in the form of a first twist groove having a threaded channel alignment capable of interlocking with a complimentary interior surface of a second beverage pod where the complimentary interior surface comprises a second set of circumferential beads in the form of a second twist groove having a threaded alignment it is not seen that patentability would be predicated on the specific alignment of said beads absent clear and compelling evidence to the contrary. Shifting the alignment of the beads would not modify the operation of the beverage pod shell and the particular alignment of the beads would therefore have been an obvious matter of design and/or choice to the ordinarily skilled artisan. Nevertheless, as further evidenced by Husband and Wicks it was well established and conventional to provide beads in a beverage pod shell that would be configured in a diagonal alignment with first and second twist grooves (‘538, fig. 9) (‘192, paragraph [0080] and fig. 5).
Regarding claim 16 Krüger in view of Kuo, in view of Roberts as further evidenced by Gerbaulet, Biondi, and Golding as further evidenced by Husband disclose the first set of circumferential beads and the second set of circumferential beads are configured in a straight alignment (‘996, fig, 4).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krüger US 2011/0142996 in view of Kuo et al. US 2022/0033173 in view of Roberts et al. US 2017/0055761 in view of Yoakim et al. US 20100239733 as further evidenced by Husband et al. US 2014/0178538.
Claim 21 differs from Krüger in view of Kuo in view of Roberts in the beverage pod being capable of repetitive use.
Yoakim discloses a beverage pod (capsule 1A) comprising an aluminium layer, a cavity comprised of a beverage pod shell (chamber 8) which shell has a polymeric coating disposed directly on an interior surface of the aluminium layer (paragraph [0078] – [0079]). Yoakim further discloses that the beverage pod would be capable of repetitive use (refillable capsule) (paragraph [0073]) which is to say to reduce the environmental impact making it obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan to have made the beverage pod of Krüger in view of Kuo in view of Roberts capable of repetitive use as taught by Yoakim.
Husband provides further evidence that it was well established in the art to have configured the beverage pod for repetitive use (‘538, paragraph [0014]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06 March 2026 have been fully and carefully considered but they are not found persuasive.
Applicant urges that Krüger does not teach or suggest the claimed direct-on-aluminium polymeric coating positioned between the aluminium and the formed filter material or teach or suggest sealing the lid directly to that polymeric coating along the rim. Applicant urges similarly with respect to Kuo. These urgings are not deemed persuasive.
Krüger was brought to teach the basics of the beverage pod and that it was known and conventional in the art to provide a beverage pod with a beverage pod shell comprising a cavity comprising one or more detents capable of interlocking with one or more beverage pods and not to teach the claimed aluminium polymeric coating positioned between the aluminium and the formed filter material or teach sealing the lid directly to that polymeric coating along the rim. Those limitations have been taught by Roberts. Had Krüger taught all the limitations as claimed a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 would not have been necessary as a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 would have ensued.
As with Krüger , Kuo was not brought to teach the claimed aluminium polymeric coating positioned between the aluminium and the formed filter material or teach sealing the lid directly to that polymeric coating along the rim. Kuo was brought to teach that a beverage pod shell comprising one or more detents that are capable of interlocking with one or more beverage pods was conventional and well established in the art. Again as with Krüger, had Kuo taught all the limitations as claimed a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 would not have been necessary as a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 would have ensued.
Applicant urges that Roberts does not teach or suggest "an aluminum layer," and "a cavity comprised of a beverage pod shell... wherein the cavity further comprises a polymeric coating disposed directly on an interior surface of the aluminum layer such that the polymeric coating is positioned between the aluminum layer and the formed filter material," and further "an airtight lid wherein the airtight lid is sealed directly to the polymeric coating along a peripheral rim of the beverage pod shell." This is to say that applicant is urging that Roberts does not teach or suggest the specific layered interface architecture as claimed. These urgings are not found persuasive.
Roberts clearly discloses that the polymeric coating is disposed directly on an aluminium layer, (the inside surface of the receptable is covered with . . . a thin layer of polypropylene) as clearly disclosed in paragraph [0243]. Regarding applicant’s urging that Roberts does not disclose the formed filter is adhered to the polymeric coating, here applicant is urging limitations not found in the claims. Further, Roberts has clearly taught that the aluminium layer has a polymeric coating that is structurally positioned between the aluminium layer and the formed filter material as Roberts discloses the receptacles, i.e., the beverage pods so lined with said polymeric coating would not retain filter material (paragraph [0209]) which is to say that since said coating is directly applied to the aluminium layer the polymeric coating would obviously have to be between the aluminium layer and the filter. That the filter would be adhered to the cavity has previously been taught by Krüger. It must be remembered that the rejections have been made over a combination of references and that if any of the references had taught all the limitations as claimed a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 would not have been necessary as a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 would have ensued.
It is also noted that applicant has urged each of the references separately for what each of the references does not teach when the rejections have been made over the references in combination.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
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 16 March 2026
/VIREN A THAKUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792