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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 12, 15, 19, 22-24, 26, and 27 are objected to because of the following informality: “centres” should read “centers” in all instances the limitation appears in the claims.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“presents:” in line 4 should read “comprises:”.
“plane vertically” in line 5 should read “plane that is vertically”.
“for being” in line 7 should read “to be”.
“a hole or a deformable area,” in line 10 should read “holes or deformable areas,” (because at least two fixing members cannot be a single hole or deformable area).
“said two” in line 10 should read “said at least two”.
“pack, and each” in line 11 should read “pack, each”.
“fixing areas” in line 12 should read “fixing area”.
“the distance” in line 13 should read “a distance”.
“the centres” in line 13 should read “centers”.
“mm,” in line 13 should read “mm”.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informality: “starch- based” in line 4 should read “starch-based”.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“wall, and at” in line 2 should read “wall, at”.
“of the bottom” in line 3 should read “of bottom”.
“said walls” in line 3 should read “said front and back walls”.
“and” in line 5 should be omitted.
“is of at” in line 6 should read “is at”.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“bottom of” in line 2 should read “bottom side of”.
“piece of material” in line 3 should read “piece of reinforcing material”.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informality: “52 m” in line 3 should read “52 mm”.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informality: “dimension comprised between” in line 2 should read “dimension between”.
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“the distance” in line 1 should read “wherein the distance”.
“being” in line 3 should read “is”.
Claims 23 and 24 are objected to because of the following informality: “is of at” in line 2 should read “is at”.
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 12-20 and 22-27 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the bottom part" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting the limitation as if it instead reads “the bottom side”.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 12 recites the broad recitation “a hole or a deformable area” in line 10, and the claim also recites “the holes and/or deformable areas” in lines 11-12 which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation (emphasis added). The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. The examiner suggest changing “and/or” in line 11 to “or” in order to overcome this rejection.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the stretchable material" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation would have proper antecedent basis if claim 14 depended from claim 13 instead of claim 12. For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting the limitation as if claim 14 depends from claim 13 instead of claim 12.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the edges" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting the limitation as if it instead reads “edges”.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the first opening" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation would have proper antecedent basis if claim 18 depended from claim 17 instead of claim 12. For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting the limitation as if claim 18 depends from claim 17 instead of claim 12. Please note that if claim 18 is amended to depend from 17 instead of claim 12, then “a second opening” in line 2 of claim 18 must be changed to “the second opening” (because “a second opening” was previously recited in line 7 of claim 17).
Claims 13-20 and 22-27 are rejected as being indefinite because they depend from claim 12.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 12-16, 19, 20, 22-24, 26, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perentes et al. (US 2017/0275086), hereinafter Perentes.
Regarding claim 12, Perentes discloses a pack (100 in Figure 1) containing a beverage ingredient (the “coffee powder” described in Paragraphs 0008, 0041, and 0046) and configured for preparing a beverage (the “coffee beverage” described in Paragraphs 0008, 0015, 0041, and 0042) by injection of fluid (the “fluid” described in Paragraphs 0041, 0046, 0048) therein (Paragraphs 0041, 0015, 0019), wherein:
the beverage ingredient (“coffee powder”) is a water soluble or infusible beverage ingredient (Paragraphs 0041, 0020, 0046, and 0048), said pack (100) presents:
a plane shape (the “plane shape” described in Paragraphs 0016, 0043, and 0053), said plane shape (“plane shape”) being oriented along a plane vertically oriented during beverage production (Paragraph 0016, 0043, and 0053), and
a bottom side (the bottom portion of 100 shown circled in an annotated version of Figure 1 of Perentes, hereinafter Figure 1x, below) comprising an area (10 in Figures 1-6; or 12, 14, and 15 collectively in figure 6) configured for being openable (because 14 can be separated from 12 to dispense the “coffee beverage” as described in Paragraphs 0057 and 0014), said openable area (10; or 12, 14, and 15 collectively) being made of a flexible material (at least because 14 and 15 can be freely moved/flexed away 12 after separation of 14 from 12, as in clear when Figure 6 and Paragraphs 0057 and 0014 are considered together), and
the bottom part (shown circled and labeled “bottom side” in Figure 1x below) of the pack (100) comprises at least two fixing members (the bottom two holes 31 on the left and right sides of 100 in Figure 1), said fixing members (the bottom two holes 31 on the left and right sides of 100 in Figure 1) being a hole (Paragraph 0067), said two fixing members (the bottom two holes 31 on the left and right sides of 100 in Figure 1) being positioned around the openable area (10; or 12, 14, and 15 collectively) of the bottom side of the pack (100) (apparent from Figure 1x below), and each of the holes (the bottom two holes 31 on the left and right sides of 100 in Figure 1) of the pack (100) encompasses one circular fixing areas (apparent from Figure 1, Paragraph 0067).
PNG
media_image1.png
793
817
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1x: an annotated version of Figure 1 of Perentes
However, Perentes does not expressly disclose: the distance between the centres of said circular fixing areas is at most 52 mm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have made the distance between the centres of said circular fixing areas be at most 52 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, and since doing so would make the pack narrow and compact. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in Paragraphs 0059, 0092, 0147, and 0149 of the Patent Application Publication of the instant application, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 13, Perentes discloses that the openable area (12, 14, and 15 collectively) is made of a stretchable material (it is clear from Figure 6 and 7 and Paragraph 0057 that at least part 15 of the openable area can be stretched after separation of 14 from 12).
Regarding claim 14, Perentes discloses that the stretchable material is polyethylene (PE) or polypropylene (PP) (because the entirety of 10, which includes 12, 14, and 15, is made of polyethylene or polypropylene, as stated in Paragraph 0064).
Regarding claim 15, Perentes discloses that the pack (100) comprises a front wall (25 in Figure 1) and a back wall (26 in Figure 1) (Paragraphs 0040 and 0043), and at least the edges (27 and 27’ in Figure 1) of the bottom parts of said walls (25 and 26) are sealed together around the openable area (10; or 12, 14, and 15 collectively) of the bottom side (apparent from Figure 1, Paragraphs 0040 and 0067), and the circular fixing areas (the bottom two holes 31 on the left and right sides of 100 in Figure 1) are provided in said sealed edges (27 and 27’) (Paragraph 0067).
However, Perentes does not expressly disclose: the distance between the centres of the circular fixing areas is of at least 40 mm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have made the distance between the centres of the circular fixing areas be at least 40 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, and since doing so would ensure that the pack is not too narrow and structurally unstable. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in Paragraphs 0066, 0092, 0148, and 0149 of the Patent Application Publication of the instant application, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 16, Perentes discloses that the openable area (10) of the pack (100) comprises a piece of reinforcing material (13 in Figures 2-8) (Paragraphs 0054 and 0057) and the bottom (shown circled and labeled “bottom side” in Figure 1x above) of the pack (100) comprises sealed edges (27 and 27’ in Figure 1) around said piece of material (13) (apparent when Figure 1x is viewed in relation to Figure 2, Paragraphs 0040, 0042, and 0044).
Regarding claim 19, Perentes discloses all the limitations of the claim as stated above but does not expressly disclose: the distance between the centres of the circular fixing areas is between 40 and 52 mm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have made the distance between the centres of the circular fixing areas be between 40 and 52 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, and since doing so would make the pack narrow and structurally stable. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in Paragraphs 0092 and 0149 of the Patent Application Publication of the instant application, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 20, Perentes discloses that the pack (100) presents a transversal dimension (the horizontal width dimension of 100 in Figure 1).
However, Perentes does not expressly disclose: the transversal dimension is between 65 and 75 mm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have made the transversal dimension be between 65 and 75 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, and since doing so would make the pack narrow and structurally stable. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in Paragraphs 0093 and 0150 of the Patent Application Publication of the instant application, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 22, Perentes discloses all the limitations of the claim as stated above but does not expressly disclose: the distance between the centres of said circular fixing areas being at most 50 mm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have made the distance between the centres of said circular fixing areas be at most 50 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, and since doing so would make the pack narrow and compact. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in Paragraphs 0059 and 0147 of the Patent Application Publication of the instant application, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 23, Perentes discloses all the limitations of the claim as stated above but does not expressly disclose: the distance between the centres of the circular fixing areas is of at least 42 mm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have made the distance between the centres of the circular fixing areas be at least 42 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, and since doing so would ensure that the pack is not too narrow and structurally unstable. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in Paragraphs 0066 and 0148 of the Patent Application Publication of the instant application, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 24, Perentes discloses all the limitations of the claim as stated above but does not expressly disclose: the distance between the centres of the circular fixing areas is of at least 44 mm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have made the distance between the centres of the circular fixing areas be at least 44 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, and since doing so would ensure that the pack is not too narrow and structurally unstable. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in Paragraphs 0066 and 0148 of the Patent Application Publication of the instant application, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 26, Perentes discloses all the limitations of the claim as stated above but does not expressly disclose: the distance between the centres of the circular fixing areas is between 43 and 50 mm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have made the distance between the centres of the circular fixing areas be between 43 and 50 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, and since doing so would make the pack narrow and structurally stable. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in Paragraphs 0092 and 0149 of the Patent Application Publication of the instant application, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 27, Perentes discloses all the limitations of the claim as stated above but does not expressly disclose: the distance between the centres of the circular fixing areas is between 45 and 48 mm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have made the distance between the centres of the circular fixing areas be between 45 and 48 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, and since doing so would make the pack narrow and structurally stable. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in Paragraphs 0092 and 0149 of the Patent Application Publication of the instant application, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17, 18, and 25 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 17, the closest prior art reference, Perentes (see 103 rejection of claim 12 above), taken alone or in combination with the prior art as a whole, fails to teach or render obvious any of the limitations of claim 17.
Regarding claim 18, it is indicated as being allowable solely because it is being interpreted to depend from claim 17 (see 112(b) rejection of claim 18 above) which is allowable as stated above.
Regarding claim 25, it is indicated as being allowable solely because it depends from claim 17 which is allowable as stated above.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The patent documents listed on the PTO-892 form teach limitations of the claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TANZIM IMAM whose telephone number is (571)272-2216. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri 8:00AM - 4:00PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shelley Self can be reached on 571-272-4524. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TANZIM IMAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731