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 amendments filed 4/20/2026 have been entered.
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 6-8, 10-13, 15-18, 20, 22, and 23 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 6 recites the limitations “said control mechanism” and “the positioning". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the tip". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitations "said open state”, and “said closed state". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitations "the tip". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitations "said open state”, and “said closed state". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitations "the tip". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “cutoff mechanism” and “pinch mechanism” in claims 1, 11, and 16.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 11, 12, 15-17, and 20-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US PG Pub No. 2002/0179647 (Hall et al. hereinafter).
In re claim 1, with reference to the Figs. below, Hall et al. discloses: A baby bottle (100) for controlling the flow of a feeding fluid, the bottle comprising: a main body (110); a tube (130) in fluid communication with said main body and having a hollow volume and two opposing ends (at junctions with 140 and 120), and disposed entirely within the baby bottle (while not shown in a single Figure of Applicant’s disclosure, Applicant’s tube 129 is interpreted to be shown within the baby bottle/infant bottle 100 which encompasses the entire invention, therefore, the tube 130 of Hall et al. is similarly considered “entirely within” the device 100); a baby bottle nipple (140) in fluid communication with said tube and configured to allow fluid to pass therethrough when the baby bottle is either full of fluid or less than completely full of fluid and is inverted, placing the nipple below the main body (see Fig. 2 for example); and a cutoff (150) mechanism comprising a connecting ring, a pinch mechanism and said tube, wherein said pinch mechanism includes a plunger for obstructing flow of fluid through said tube; wherein said pinch mechanism has a button configured to pace the flow of fluid through the tube and baby bottle nipple during use of the baby bottle for feeding by obstructing the flow of fluid through said tube when said button is pressed and allowing the flow of fluid through said tube when said button is released (150 is pressed to “pinch” the tube and control/allow/stop flow, paragraph 0020).
[AltContent: textbox (Connecting Ring)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
458
514
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed (i.e. for baby feeding fluid) does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114, II. Note that the devices of Hall et al. and the present invention are conceivably operated by an adult/non-infant.
In re claim 2, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Hall et al. discloses the claimed invention including wherein said tube (130) extends from a tip of the baby bottle nipple (140) to the main body (110).
In re claim 5, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Hall et al. discloses the claimed invention including a feeding reservoir formed in said baby bottle nipple (inner volume/channel of 140), and wherein said tube (130) extends from said feeding reservoir to said main body (110).
In re claim 11, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Hall et al. discloses: A baby bottle for controlling the flow of a feeding fluid, the bottle comprising: a main body; a tube in fluid communication with said main body and having a hollow volume and two opposing ends, and disposed entirely inside the baby bottle (as interpreted in re claim 1 above); a baby bottle nipple in fluid communication with said tube and configured to allow fluid to pass therethrough when the baby bottle is inverted, placing the nipple below the main body; and a cutoff mechanism comprising a connecting ring and a pinch mechanism positioned proximate to said tube; wherein said pinch mechanism has a button configured to pace the flow of fluid through the tube and baby bottle nipple during use of the baby bottle for feeding by obstructing the flow of fluid through said tube when said button is pressed and allowing the flow of fluid through said tube when said button is released (as in re claim 1 above); and wherein said cutoff mechanism is biased toward said open state (see Fig. 1) and will move to said closed state only upon action of a user of said baby bottle to press said button (paragraph 0020).
In re claim 12, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Hall et al. discloses the claimed invention including wherein said tube extends from the tip of the baby bottle nipple to the main body (as in re claim 2 above).
In re claim 15, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Hall et al. discloses the claimed invention including wherein a feeding reservoir formed in said baby bottle nipple, and wherein said tube extends from said feeding reservoir to said main body (as in re claim 5 above).
In re claim 21, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Hall et al. discloses the claimed invention including wherein said connecting ring is releasably fixed to said baby bottle nipple (by indirect attachment via the tube) and said main body and secures said cutoff mechanism to said baby bottle nipple and said main body (i.e. device of Hall et al. moves in one piece, therefore all components are considered attached to one another).
In re claim 22, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Hall et al. discloses the claimed invention including wherein said connecting ring is releasably fixed to said baby bottle nipple and said main body and secures said cutoff mechanism to said baby bottle nipple and said main body (as in re claim 21 above).
In re claim 23, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Hall et al. discloses the claimed invention including wherein said connecting ring is releasably fixed to said baby bottle nipple and said main body and secures said cutoff mechanism to said baby bottle nipple and said main body (as in re claim 21 above).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 16, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall et al.
In re claim 16, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Hall et al. discloses: A baby bottle for controlling the flow of a feeding fluid, the bottle comprising: a main body; a tube in fluid communication with said main body and having a hollow volume and two opposing ends and disposed entirely inside the baby bottle; a baby bottle nipple in fluid communication with said tube and configured to allow fluid to pass therethrough when the baby bottle is inverted, placing the nipple below the main body; and a cutoff mechanism comprising a connecting ring and a pinch mechanism positioned proximate to said tube; wherein said pinch mechanism has a button configured to pace the flow of fluid through the tube and baby bottle nipple during use of the baby bottle for feeding by obstructing the flow of fluid through said tube when said button is pressed and allowing the flow of fluid through said tube when said button is released (as in re claim 11 above).
Hall et al. fails to disclose wherein and wherein said cutoff mechanism is biased toward said closed state and will move to said open state only upon action of a user of said baby bottle to press said button.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have merely reversed the functionality of the pinch mechanism of Hall et al. to be biased towards being closed, and opened when actuated by a user (and held open by the ratchet teeth shown on 150 of Hall et al. for example), since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167. Please note that in the instant application, paragraph 054, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations, or how biasing towards the closed state is critical and novel compared to biasing towards the open state.
In re claim 17, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Hall et al. discloses the claimed invention including wherein said tube extends from the tip of the baby bottle nipple to the main body (as in re claim 2 above).
In re claim 20, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Hall et al. discloses the claimed invention including wherein a feeding reservoir formed in said baby bottle nipple, and wherein said tube extends from said feeding reservoir to said main body (as in re claim 21 above).
Claim(s) 3, 13, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall et al. as applied to claims 1, 11, and 16 above, and further in view of US Patent No. 7,600,656 (Karl et al. hereinafter).
In re claims 3, 13 and 18, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Hall et al. discloses the claimed invention except wherein said main body is a rigid bottle.
However, Karl et al. discloses a portable fluid delivery device wherein the main body (32) is rigid (page 5, lines 46-52: “body 32 of reservoir 20 is formed as a rigid or semi-rigid structural shape and is intended to be resistant to substantial deformation (e.g. "collapse," "buckle," "flatten," etc.) and retain a substantially "fixed" shape. The body is intended to have sufficient stiffness to act as a "frame" for the holder and maintain the shape of the holder when the personal hydration system is used”).
PNG
media_image2.png
754
510
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified the main body of Hall et al. to have been rigid as taught by Karl et al. for the purposes of allowing the body to have sufficient stiffness to act as a "frame" and maintain the shape of the device when the system is used (Karl et al. column 5, lines 46-52).
Claim(s) 6, 7 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US PG Pub no. 2016/0161004 (Thompson hereinafter).
In re claim 6, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Hall et al. discloses the claimed invention except wherein a control system for controlling said pinch mechanism and a motor, and wherein said control mechanism instructs said motor to alter the positioning of said plunger of said pinch mechanism.
However, with reference to Fig. 11 below, Thompson discloses a control system for controlling a pinch mechanism and a motor, wherein said control mechanism instructs said motor to alter the positioning of said plunger (58/90) of said pinch mechanism (paragraph 0027 and 0035).
PNG
media_image3.png
456
437
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified the pinch mechanism of Hall et al. to have been controlled by a controller and motor as taught by Thompson for the predictable purposes of automating the control of the mechanism and/or serving to relieve the hands of a user from being required to manually force the tube closed or open.
In re claim 7, with reference to the Figs noted above, Hall et al. in view of Thompson disclose the claimed invention including wherein said tube extends from the tip of the baby bottle nipple to the main body (as in re claim 2 above).
In re claim 10, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Hall et al. in view of Thompson discloses the claimed invention including a feeding reservoir formed in said baby bottle nipple, and wherein said tube extends from said feeding reservoir to said main body (as in re claim 5 above).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall et al. in view of Thompson as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Karl et al.
In re claim 8, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Hall et al. in view of Thompson discloses the claimed invention except wherein said main body is a rigid bottle.
However, Karl et al. discloses a portable fluid delivery device wherein the main body (32) is rigid (page 5, lines 46-52: “body 32 of reservoir 20 is formed as a rigid or semi-rigid structural shape and is intended to be resistant to substantial deformation (e.g. "collapse," "buckle," "flatten," etc.) and retain a substantially "fixed" shape. The body is intended to have sufficient stiffness to act as a "frame" for the holder and maintain the shape of the holder when the personal hydration system is used”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified the main body of Hall et al. in view of Thompson to have been rigid as taught by Karl et al. for the purposes of allowing the body to have sufficient stiffness to act as a "frame" and maintain the shape of the device when the system is used (Karl et al. column 5, lines 46-52).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claim(s) as filed 4/20/2026 have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the tube of Hall et al. is outside of the systems bladder. However, Applicant has defined the “baby bottle” (interpreted as referring to the “infant bottle 100” in Applicant’s original specification, and it would appear that every element forming the “infant bottle” is interpreted to reside within the “infant bottle” 100. Applying the same interpretation to Hall et al., the tube 130 is entirely within the device 100 as see in Fig. 1 above. Further note that the tube 129 of Applicant’s disclosure also cannot be considered entirely within the main body 101, as shown in Applicant’s figs. 3, 5, and, and would therefore be considered new matter should such an amendment be presented.
No further arguments are presented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW T KIRSCH whose telephone number is (571)270-5723. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9a-5p EST.
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, Nathan Jenness can be reached at 571-270-5055. 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.
/ANDREW T KIRSCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733
Prosecution Insights