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 .
The Amendment filed July 15, 2025 has been entered. Claims 6-11 are pending. Claims 6, 8, and 10-11 have been amended.
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 6-7 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Licai (US 2014/0261275 A1; Oct. 2, 2014).
Regarding claims 6-7 and 10-11, Licari teaches a child’s drinking cap for containers, including bottles or liquid and juice pouches (paragraphs 1-4, 11, 15, and 26).
Licari teaches that the use of the cap enhances normal oral motor development and physiological development of a person’s mouth (jaws, lips, mouth, teeth, etc.) so that the person can learn to drink with optimum movement of the lips, tongue, jaw, teeth, and palate), which overcomes the problem of traditional sippy cups on which children inappropriately use their tongue, wherein the cap will not negatively impact the development of speech, oral motor skills, and physiology as the prior art spouts and mouthpieces do (abstract and paragraphs 1-6, 10, and 15).
Licari further teaches that the cap (capper) has a spout with a single opening (16) affixed to a flat planner section (30), wherein the opening of the spout is preferably about 0.25-0.75 inches above the planner surface to prevent the spout from extending too deeply into the mouth of the child or cause the jaw to open or close in an abnormal movement pattern or otherwise contact growing mouth structures and/or impact normal growth and development (paragraphs 5 and 27). Specifically, the flat planner section (30) in which the spout (16) terminates is considered to encompass a lip stopper disposed in communication with the spout as instantly claimed.
Therefore, as Licari is directed towards preventing the drinking apparatus from extending too deeply into the mouth so that it does not negatively impact oral growth and development, Licari is considered to teach a method of preventing entrance of a drinking apparatus from moving beyond the lips of a user, thus avoiding displacement of a tongue as claimed. Further, the instant specification teaches that the drinking apparatus can have a spout that is ¼ inch long. As Licari teaches a spout that can be ¼ in long and further is directed towards developing normal oral growth and development, which is the same purpose of the instant invention, Licari is considered to teach the method as claimed (e.g. a method of preventing entrance of a drinking apparatus from moving beyond the lips of a user, thus avoiding displacement of a tongue).
With respect to the body of the claim, Licari teaches in use the cap is screwed onto a bottle; the bottle is inverted (e.g. grasped) so that the liquid is above the opening of the spout; and passage of liquid comes through the spout to be consumed (paragraph 35). Licari further teaches that the cap (capper) has a spout with a single opening (16) affixed to a flat planner section (30), wherein the opening of the spout is preferably about 0.25-0.75 inches above the planner surface to prevent the spout from extending too deeply into the mouth of the child or cause the jaw to open or close in an abnormal movement pattern or otherwise contact growing mouth structures and/or impact normal growth and development (paragraphs 5 and 27). Specifically, the flat planner section (30) in which the spout (16) terminates is considered to encompass a lip stopper as instantly claimed.
Therefore, Licari teaches grasping, consuming and preventing. With respect to the forming step, as Licari teaches a similar apparatus as claimed, comprising a drinking apparatus equipped with a lip stopper that can be the same length as recited in the instant specification that prevents abnormal oral development, Licari is considered to meet the forming step as claimed.
Applicant has presented many function language limitations without reciting any actual structure that meets the claimed limitations. The claimed method only requires the process steps of grasping, consuming, preventing and forming. Licari teaches all the claimed steps. Again, while Licari may not specifically teach all the claimed limitations, Licari meets the claimed limitations as the instant specification teaches that the drinking apparatus can have a spout that is ¼ inch long, which prevents the spout from moving beyond the lips and Licari teaches a spout that can be ¼ in long and further is directed towards developing normal oral growth and development, which is the same purpose of the instant invention.
As Licari teaches the use of the cap enhances normal oral motor development and physiological development of a person’s mouth (jaws, lips, mouth, teeth, etc.) so that the person can learn to drink with optimum movement of the lips, tongue, jaw, teeth, and palate), which overcomes the problem of traditional sippy cups on which children inappropriately use their tongue, wherein the cap will not negatively impact the development of speech, oral motor skills, and physiology as the prior art spouts and mouthpieces do (abstract and paragraphs 1-6, 10, and 15), the teachings of Licari are considered to encompass the method limitations as instantly claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Licai (US 2014/0261275 A1; Oct. 2, 2014) in view of Tomassini (US Patent No. 9,060,918 B1; June 23, 2015).
Regarding claims 8-9, Licari teaches a child’s drinking cap for containers, including bottles or liquid and juice pouches (paragraphs 1-4, 11, 15, and 26).
Licari teaches that the use of the cap enhances normal oral motor development and physiological development of a person’s mouth (jaws, lips, mouth, teeth, etc.) so that the person can learn to drink with optimum movement of the lips, tongue, jaw, teeth, and palate), which overcomes the problem of traditional sippy cups on which children inappropriately use their tongue, wherein the cap will not negatively impact the development of speech, oral motor skills, and physiology as the prior art spouts and mouthpieces do (abstract and paragraphs 1-6, 10, and 15).
Licari further teaches that the cap (capper) has a spout with a single opening (16) affixed to a flat planner section (30), wherein the opening of the spout is preferably about 0.25-0.75 inches above the planner surface to prevent the spout from extending too deeply into the mouth of the child or cause the jaw to open or close in an abnormal movement pattern or otherwise contact growing mouth structures and/or impact normal growth and development (paragraphs 5 and 27). Specifically, the flat planner section (30) in which the spout (16) terminates is considered to encompass a lip stopper disposed in communication with the spout as instantly claimed.
Therefore, as Licari is directed towards preventing the drinking apparatus from extending too deeply into the mouth so that it does not negatively impact oral growth and development, Licari is considered to teach a method of preventing entrance of a drinking apparatus from moving beyond the lips of a user, thus avoiding displacement of a tongue as claimed. Further, the instant specification teaches that the drinking apparatus can have a spout that is ¼ inch long. As Licari teaches a spout that can be ¼ in long and further is directed towards developing normal oral growth and development, which is the same purpose of the instant invention, Licari is considered to teach the method as claimed (e.g. a method of preventing entrance of a drinking apparatus from moving beyond the lips of a user, thus avoiding displacement of a tongue).
With respect to the body of the claim, Licari teaches in use the cap is screwed onto a bottle; the bottle is inverted (e.g. grasped) so that the liquid is above the opening of the spout; and passage of liquid comes through the spout to be consumed (paragraph 35). Licari further teaches that the cap (capper) has a spout with a single opening (16) affixed to a flat planner section (30), wherein the opening of the spout is preferably about 0.25-0.75 inches above the planner surface to prevent the spout from extending too deeply into the mouth of the child or cause the jaw to open or close in an abnormal movement pattern or otherwise contact growing mouth structures and/or impact normal growth and development (paragraphs 5 and 27). Specifically, the flat planner section (30) in which the spout (16) terminates is considered to encompass a lip stopper as instantly claimed.
Therefore, Licari teaches grasping, consuming and preventing. With respect to “preventing because the spout does not move past the lips of the user…”, as Licari teaches a similar apparatus as claimed, comprising a drinking apparatus equipped with a lip stopper that can be the same length as recited in the instant specification that prevents abnormal oral development, Licari is considered to meet the forming step as claimed.
Applicant has presented many function language limitations without reciting any actual structure that meets the claimed limitations. The claimed method only requires the process steps of grasping, consuming, preventing and forming. Licari teaches all the claimed steps. Again, while Licari may not specifically teach all the claimed limitations, Licari meets the claimed limitations as the instant specification teaches that the drinking apparatus can have a spout that is ¼ inch long, which prevents the spout from moving beyond the lips and Licari teaches a spout that can be ¼ in long and further is directed towards developing normal oral growth and development, which is the same purpose of the instant invention.
As Licari teaches the use of the cap enhances normal oral motor development and physiological development of a person’s mouth (jaws, lips, mouth, teeth, etc.) so that the person can learn to drink with optimum movement of the lips, tongue, jaw, teeth, and palate), which overcomes the problem of traditional sippy cups on which children inappropriately use their tongue, wherein the cap will not negatively impact the development of speech, oral motor skills, and physiology as the prior art spouts and mouthpieces do (abstract and paragraphs 1-6, 10, and 15), the teachings of Licari are considered to encompass the method limitations as instantly claimed.
With respect to the spout preventing a need for inversion of the drinking apparatus during use, as stated above, Licari teaches affixing the spout to a container and inverting the container to consumer the contents.
Tomassini further teaches a spout with a lip stopper that can be affixed to a squeezable pouch, wherein the pouch is squeezed to force the content into the spout for consumption directly from the spout (col 5 lines 30-45).
As Tomassini teaches that a spout can be affixed to different types of containers, including a squeezable pouch, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the spout with lip stopper of Licari be affixed to a squeezable pouch such that the contents are squeezed out of the pouch through the spout and directly consumed, which would prevent a need for inversion. Doing so would allow for a variety of feeding methods to occur and would have been obvious depending on the desired use, whether it was desired to be inverted or not. This is merely using different known containers and affixing known spouts for desired uses.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with have been fully considered but were not found persuasive.
Applicant argues that the rejection seems to center around the fact that the measurements of the invention taught by Licari are within a range of measurements for dimensions of the present invention, which are not claimed.
This is not found persuasive as the examiner points to measurements in both Licari and the instant specification to show similarity. As stated above in the rejection, applicant is claiming multiple functional limitations. Licari fails to specifically teach the functions limitations as claimed, such as the method preventing entrance of a drinking apparatus from moving beyond lips of a user and from entering a mouth of the user, thus avoiding displacement of a tongue of the user, etc. Therefore, the examiner looks to the specification for clarity on how the drinking apparatus is structured to meet the claimed functional limitations. Therefore, that is why measurements are compared above in the rejection, to show that the spout of Licari has the same measurements as the instant invention, and therefore would be capable of meeting all the claimed function limitations absent a showing otherwise.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 8 are moot based upon the new 103 rejection in further view of Tomassini, which teaches that it is well known in the art for a spout to be attached to a container that does not need inversion.
Applicant further argues that the currently claimed methods do not have any extension of the spout into the mouth of the child and Licari does not teach prevention the spout from extending past the central plane of the user’s lips.
This is not found persuasive for the same reasons as stated above. The examiner recognizes that Licari fails to specifically teach preventing the spout from extending past the central plane of the user’s lips, however, as the spout of Licari can be the same length as the spout of the instant invention, the spout of Licari is considered to not extend past the central plane of the user’s lips as claimed.
Licari teaches that the cap (capper) has a spout with an opening (16) affixed to a flat planner section (30), wherein the opening of the spout is preferably about 0.25-0.75 inches above the planner surface to prevent the spout from extending too deeply into the mouth of the child or cause the jaw to open or close in an abnormal movement pattern or otherwise contact growing mouth structures and/or impact normal growth and development (paragraphs 5 and 27). Specifically, the flat planner section (30) in which the spout (16) terminates is considered to encompass a lip stopper as instantly claimed.
Licari teaches the importance of having a small spout to prevent the spout from extending too deeply into the mouth of the child or cause the jaw to open or close in an abnormal movement pattern or otherwise contact growing mouth structures and/or impact normal growth and development.
Applicant has presented many functional language limitations without reciting any actual structure that meets the claimed limitations. The claimed method only requires the process steps of grasping, consuming, preventing and forming. Licari teaches all the claimed steps. Licari teaches in use the cap is screwed onto a bottle; the bottle is inverted (e.g. grasped) so that the liquid is above the opening of the spout; and passage of liquid comes through the spout to be consumed (paragraph 35). Licari further teaches that the cap (capper) has a spout with a single opening (16) affixed to a flat planner section (30), wherein the opening of the spout is preferably about 0.25-0.75 inches above the planner surface to prevent the spout from extending too deeply into the mouth of the child or cause the jaw to open or close in an abnormal movement pattern or otherwise contact growing mouth structures and/or impact normal growth and development (paragraphs 5 and 27). Specifically, the flat planner section (30) in which the spout (16) terminates is considered to encompass a lip stopper as instantly claimed.
Again, while Licari may not specifically teach all the claimed limitations, Licari meets the claimed limitations as the instant specification teaches that the drinking apparatus can have a spout that is ¼ inch long, which prevents the spout from moving beyond the lips and Licari teaches a spout that can be ¼ in long and further is directed towards developing normal oral growth and development, which is the same purpose of the instant invention.
As Licari teaches the use of the cap enhances normal oral motor development and physiological development of a person’s mouth (jaws, lips, mouth, teeth, etc.) so that the person can learn to drink with optimum movement of the lips, tongue, jaw, teeth, and palate), which overcomes the problem of traditional sippy cups on which children inappropriately use their tongue, wherein the cap will not negatively impact the development of speech, oral motor skills, and physiology as the prior art spouts and mouthpieces do (abstract and paragraphs 1-6, 10, and 15), the teachings of Licari are considered to encompass the method limitations as instantly claimed.
As applicant has not recited any structure that is critical to result in the claimed method, and Licari teaches a method comprising grasping a dinking apparatus, consuming content of the drinking apparatus via a spout, preventing the spout from extending too deeply into the mouth of the child or cause the jaw to open or close in an abnormal movement pattern or otherwise contact growing mouth structures and/or impact normal growth and development, applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive.
For the reasons stated above, a 102 and 103 rejection are maintained.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANIE A KOHLER whose telephone number is (571)270-1075. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Nikki Dees can be reached on (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.
/STEPHANIE A KOHLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1791