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 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 do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a heating unit” and “a rotatable member” in claim 1, “an artificial intelligence-based control unit” in claim 9, and “a vortex generator member” in claim 10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. As noticed in page 15, lines 1-3, the vortex generator member 48 is preferably implemented as a shaped protrusion formed of the material of the side wall 44 and/or the base portion 46 of the baby formula container 40.
If applicant does not intend 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 avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 3, the limitation “an rotatable member” should read “a rotatable member”. 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 1-14 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 limitations “a heating unit”, “a rotatable member” and “an artificial intelligence-based control unit” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. In this case, the disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Because dependent claims are dependent on the independent claim and include all the limitations of the independent claim, the remaining dependent claims recite the same indefinite scope in the independent claims and are rejected for inherited deficiencies.
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.
Claims 1-8, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carbone (US 2016/0353917).
Regarding claim 1, Carbone teaches a baby formula making device (Fig. 1-11) comprising a water tank (202, 220) adapted for storing sterilized water (this limitation is considered intended use, therefore, little or no patentable weight is given), a heating unit (280) adapted for heating water stored in the water tank (para. 0051; 0053), a formula container (20) adapted for storing a formula (para. 0003; 0033), and a feed opening (combination of 120 and 242) adapted for feeding the heated water and the formula directly into a baby formula container (500) when said baby formula container is connected to the baby formula making device (Examiner construes the term “connected” as brought into contact; as shown in Fig. 1-11), characterized by further comprising a rotatable member (158) adapted for engaging a (bottom) portion of the baby formula container (as shown in Fig. 2 and 4) such that a neck portion (504) fits the feed opening (as shown in Fig. 2 and 4), and a motor (152) adapted for driving the rotatable member for mixing the formula and water fed into the baby formula container (para. 0046-0047).
Carbone fails to disclose wherein the rotatable member adapted for engaging a neck portion of the baby formula container.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to engage the rotatable member to the neck portion of the baby formula container, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. (See MPEP 2144.04). Also, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to engage the rotatable member to the neck portion of the baby formula container since the applicant has not disclosed that doing so solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with the engagement of the rotatable member to the bottom portion of the baby formula container of Carbone.
Regarding claim 2, Carbone teaches the baby formula making device as set forth above, characterized in that the motor (152) is adapted to be controlled to drive the rotatable member with a controlled rise and fall rate, providing a splash-proof mixing of the formula and water fed into the baby formula container (abstract; para. 0015; 0037-0038; 0051-0053; 0055).
Regarding claim 3, Carbone teaches the baby formula making device as set forth above, characterized in that the motor (152) is adapted to continuously unidirectionally rotate the rotatable member for mixing the formula and water fed into the baby formula container (capable of rotating in a unidirectional direction; para. 0047; 0057).
Regarding claim 4, Carbone teaches the baby formula making device as set forth above, characterized in that the motor (152) is adapted to rotate the rotatable member by a sinusoidal speed profile (para. 0057).
Regarding claim 5, Carbone teaches the baby formula making device as set forth above, characterized in that it comprises a first conduit (232) adapted for feeding heated water and being arranged between the water tank and the feed opening (as show in Fig. 5), and a second conduit (72) adapted for feeding the formula and being arranged between the formula container and the feed opening (as show in Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 6, Carbone teaches the baby formula making device as set forth above, characterized in that the baby formula container, the water tank and the first conduit connected thereto, as well as the baby formula container, the formula container and the second conduit connected thereto constitute a closed system enabling sterile feeding (as shown in Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 7, Carbone teaches the baby formula making device as set forth above, characterized in that it further comprises a removable first cover (2, 8, or 601, 604, 602) adapted for covering an area comprising the rotatable member and the baby formula container connected thereto (as shown in Fig. 1 and 11), and/or a removable second cover (10 or 603) adapted for covering the water tank and the formula container (as shown in Fig. 1 and 11).
Regarding claim 8, Carbone teaches the baby formula making device as set forth above, characterized in that it comprises a display (14 shown in Fig. 1 or display show in Fig. 11) adapted for displaying a status of the device and/or a status of the baby formula being prepared (para. 0031; 0055).
Regarding claim 13, Carbone teaches a method for making baby formula by applying the baby formula making device as set forth above (abstract), comprising the steps of attaching an empty baby formula container (500) to a rotatable member of a baby formula making device (as shown in Fig. 2 and 4), the baby formula making device (Fig. 1-11) including a water tank (202, 220), a heating unit (280) adapted for heating water stored in the water tank (para. 0051; 0053), a formula container (20) adapted for storing a formula (para. 0003; 0033), a feed opening (combination of 120 and 242) adapted for feeding the heated water and the formula directly into the baby formula container (500), the rotatable member (158) adapted for engaging a (bottom) portion of the baby formula container (as shown in Fig. 2 and 4) such that a neck portion (504) fits the feed opening (as shown in Fig. 2 and 4), and a motor (152) adapted for driving the rotatable member to thereby mix the formula and water fed into the baby formula container (para. 0046-0047); feeding into the baby formula container an amount of formula from the formula container of the baby formula making device corresponding to a specific amount of baby formula to be made (abstract; para. 0011; 0014-0015; 0068), feeding into the baby formula container, after applying heating, an amount of sterilized water from the water tank of the baby formula making device corresponding to the specific amount of baby formula to be made ((abstract; para. 0011; 0051; 0070), and rotating the baby formula container from the (bottom) portion of the baby formula container by controlling a drive of the motor (152), whereby mixing the formula and the water fed into the baby formula container (para. 0046-0047).
Carbone fails to disclose wherein the rotatable member adapted for engaging a neck portion of the baby formula container.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to engage the rotatable member to the neck portion of the baby formula container, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. (See MPEP 2144.04). Also, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to engage the rotatable member to the neck portion of the baby formula container since the applicant has not disclosed that doing so solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with the engagement of the rotatable member to the bottom portion of the baby formula container of Carbone.
Regarding claim 14, Carbone teaches the method as set forth above, characterized by controlling the motor by applying a controlled speed rise and fall rate, such that splash-proof mixing of the substances fed into the baby formula container is provided (abstract; para. 0015; 0037-0038; 0051-0053; 0055).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carbone in view of Boone (US 2018/0168385).
Regarding claim 9, Carbone teaches all the elements of the claimed invention as set forth above, except for, and further comprising an artificial intelligence-based control unit that is adapted for forecasting a duration of a baby formula preparation process, for monitoring formula consumption habits, and/or for communicating with a communications device, preferably with a smartphone.
Boone teaches a beverage making device (610) comprising an artificial intelligence-based control unit that is adapted for forecasting a duration of a baby formula preparation process, for monitoring formula consumption habits, and/or for communicating with a communications device, preferably with a smartphone (abstract; para. 0008; 0020; 0071; 0251).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the baby formula making device of Carbone, with Boone, by providing an artificial intelligence-based control unit to provide proper control and monitoring of the baby formula making device. POSITA would have known that providing an artificial intelligence-based control unit would have a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results such as assuring beverage quality and customer satisfaction.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carbone in view of Kodama (US 2018/0140128) or Goodin (US 2019/0269578).
Regarding claim 10, Carbone teaches a baby formula container (500) for the baby formula making device as set forth above, the neck portion (504) allowing for securing a closing member (a lid or a baby bottle nipple assembly to cover the top opening 502 of the baby formula container to allow for consumption; para. 0032), a side wall (508) connected to the neck portion (as shown in Fig. 2 and 4), and a base portion (510) delimiting the side wall at the bottom (as shown in Fig. 2 and 4).
Carbone fails to disclose further comprising a vortex generator member that is adapted to generate vortices in a liquid received in the baby formula container for mixing components of the liquid and/or substances added to the liquid when the baby formula container is rotated.
Kodama teaches a stirring device for preparing a beverage (Fig. 4) comprising a vortex generator member (105) that is adapted to generate vortices in a liquid received in the mixing container (50B) for mixing components of the liquid and/or substances added to the liquid when the mixing container is rotated (para. 0127-0128).
Goodin teaches a baby bottle apparatus (100) comprising a vortex generator member (520) that is adapted to generate vortices in a liquid received in the baby formula container for mixing components of the liquid and/or substances added to the liquid when the baby formula container is rotated (para. 0045).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the baby formula making device of Carbone, with Kodama or Goodin, by providing a vortex generator member to assure proper mixing of components within the baby formula container. POSITA would have known that providing a vortex generator member would have a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results such as to efficiently distribute the baby formula and assuring proper mixing of components within the baby formula container.
Regarding claim 11, Carbone and Kodama or Goodin combined teach the baby formula container as set forth above in claim 10, characterised in that the vortex generator member is arranged on the side wall and/or on the base portion (Kodama, Fig. 4; Goodin, Fig. 4-5).
Regarding claim 12, Carbone and Kodama or Goodin combined teach the baby formula container as set forth above in claim 10, characterized in that the neck portion has a threaded configuration (Carbone; para. 0032).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding 112f/112b, the terms “a heating unit”, “a rotatable member” and “an artificial intelligence-based control unit” invoke 112f as these are generic placeholders coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholders are not preceded by a structural modifier. The written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. In this case, the disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that “Carbone fails to teach or suggest the combination of features currently recited in claim 1. Moreover, it would not have been obvious to modify Carbone to achieve the combination of features of claim 1. Merely asserting "design choice" is not sufficient for supporting a proper Section 103 rejection because Applicant has demonstrated the criticality of the placement of the rotatable member. MIPEP 2144.04. For example, paragraphs [0044]-[0046] of Applicant's specification discuss the importance of placing the rotatable member 16 near the top of the baby formula container 40 such that the rotatable member 16 may engage with the neck portion 42. Paragraph [0044] of Applicant's specification specifically states that "byfitting the neck portion 42 of the baby formula container 40 against the feed opening 38, the water and the formula to be fed through the feed opening 38 can be fed into the baby formula container 40 in their entirety." The threaded configuration of the rotatable member 16 affixes the neck portion 42, thereby securing the entire formula container 40 to the formula making device. When the formula container is properly secured to the device, the rotatable member16 may rotate the container 40, resulting in shorter mixing times. Applicant respectfully submits that the criticality of the placement of the rotatable member 16 has properly been demonstrated and that merely relying on case law as the rationale to support an obviousness rejection is improper.” on remarks page 11, lines 3-19. In response to Applicant’s arguments, Examiner has not found an explicit advantage for having the rotatable member adapted to engage the neck portion of the baby formula container instead of the bottom portion of the baby formula container. For these reasons, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to engage the rotatable member to the neck portion of the baby formula container, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. (See MPEP 2144.04). Also, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to engage the rotatable member to the neck portion of the baby formula container since the applicant has not disclosed that doing so solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with the engagement of the rotatable member to the bottom portion of the baby formula container of Carbone.
For these reasons, the arguments are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 2-14, Applicant relies on the same arguments, therefore, the same response applies.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ALBA T ROSARIO-APONTE whose telephone number is (571)272-9325. The examiner can normally be reached M to F; 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, Steven Crabb can be reached at 571-270-5095. 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.
/ALBA T ROSARIO-APONTE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 02/07/2026
/STEVEN W CRABB/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761