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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
With regards to claim 4, the phrase “configured to provide safe oral contact for children during feeding and teething” is not supported by the original specification and is new matter.
With regards to claim 5, the phrase “wherein the material properties enable safe cleaning and sanitization while maintaining structural integrity during repeated use” is not supported by the original specification and is new matter.
With regards to claim 6, the phrase “that maintains structural integrity and suction capability through repeated attachment and detachment cycles while remaining safe for child contact” is not supported by the original specification and is new matter.
With regards to claim 7, the phrase “that enables secure attachment while maintaining child-safe properties during extended use in various feeding environments” is not supported by the original specification and is new matter.
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 4-7 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.
With regards to claim 4, the phrase “configured to provide safe oral contact for children during feeding and teething” is indefinite. This limitation is based on the indefinite unclaimed user. It is unclear what perimeters are required to make this statement true for every user in every situation. If the user has a mouth issue or if the user is allergic to the material, how is the oral contact safe in these conditions.
With regards to claims 5 and 6, the phrases “wherein the material properties enable safe cleaning and sanitization while maintaining structural integrity during repeated use” and “that maintains structural integrity and suction capability through repeated attachment and detachment cycles while remaining safe for child contact” are indefinite. This limitation is based on the indefinite unclaimed intended use. It is unclear what perimeters are required to make this statement true for every user in every situation. While the device is intended to be utilized with feeding a child, the device is perfectly capable of being utilized in an infinite number of unintended situations where cleaning and sanitization may not be possible and the structural integrity may be compromised.
With regards to claim 7, the phrase “that enables secure attachment while maintaining child-safe properties during extended use in various feeding environments” is indefinite. This limitation is based on the indefinite unclaimed intended use. It is unclear what perimeters are required to make this statement true for every user in every situation. What if properties are not child-safe in one feeding environments in one location but are safe in that same environment but in another location? If the user is allergic to the material, how are child-safe properties maintained?
With regards to claim 7, the phrases “child-safe properties” and “feeding environments”. These terms are indefinite as they are dependent upon the unclaimed indefinite user. Each property and environment can have an infinite number of perimeters. If the user is allergic to the material even though it is considered child-safe, the material is not child-safe in this situation.
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 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.
Claims 1, 2, and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fynbo et al. (11,197,584) in view of Agase et al. (5,131,151).
With regards to claims 1 and 2, Fynbo et al. disclose the invention including a removable and adjustable feeding utensil device (Fig. 14) having one contiguous segment (Fig. 14) having a first end including a utensil (1412), a second end (end of 1409 connected to 1406 in Fig. 14) and a middle portion (portion of 1409 between 1412 and the second end), a connection means (1406, 212A), the second end is capable of being removably assembled to connecting means (Fig. 14), the connecting means is then attached to a feeding station (column 5 lines 35-40), the connecting means is a suction cup apparatus (212A) having a suction cup base (Fig. 2C) and a ring (1406), and the suction cup base is connected to a flat surface of the feeding station (column 5 lines 35-40).
However, with regards to claim 1, Fynbo et al. fail disclose the second end including a notch system that includes a raised cylindrical button positioned adjacent to a row of equidistantly positioned punched holes, whereby the segment is looped about the connecting means and the button is inserted into one of the holes to secure the segments to the connecting means, and adjusting the length of the segment depending on which of the holes the button is inserted.
Agase et al. teach it is known in the art of feeding devices with one contiguous segment having a first end including a utensil (36) and a second end (10) to incorporate the second end including a notch system (Fig. 1) that includes a raised cylindrical button (12) positioned adjacent to a row of equidistantly positioned punched holes (26), whereby the segment is capable of being looped about the connecting means (Fig. 3) and the button (12) is inserted into one of the holes (26) capable of securing the segment to the connecting means (Fig. 3), and adjusting the length of the segment depending on which of the holes the button is inserted (12, 26). Fynbo et al. teach alternate utensils/items can be utilized (118, 121, 1412) and alternate structures attaching the utensils/items to the suction cup (106, 1409, 1509, 1529). Since Agase et al. discloses the ability to loop around and attach to another item and in light of the use of alternatives taught by Fynbo et al., it would have been well within one’s technical skill to have utilized the feeding device of Agase et al. with the connecting means of Fynbo et al. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to have provided Fynbo et al. with the segment, as taught by Agase et al., because all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results.
With regards to claims 4-6, Fynbo et al. in view of Agase et al. fail to disclose the specific materials capable of providing safe oral contact for children during feeding and teething, wherein the material properties are capable of enabling safe cleaning and sanitization while maintaining structural integrity during repeated use, and capable of maintaining structural integrity and suction capability through repeated attachment and detachment cycles while remaining safe for child contact.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have utilized any reasonable and known material including the claimed materials, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the device of Fynbo et al. in view of Agase et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claims 4-6. The claim would have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.
Claims 1, 3, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agase et al. (5,131,151) in view of Marchant (10,941,835) with [evidence reference Fynbo et al. (11,197,584)].
With regards to claim 1, Agase et al. disclose the invention including a removable and adjustable feeding utensil (Figs. 1-3) having one contiguous segment (Fig. 3) having a first end including a utensil (36), a second end (end of 10) including a notch system (Fig. 1) and a middle portion (portion of 10 between 22 and the closest hole 26), the notch system that includes a raised cylindrical button (12) positioned adjacent to a row of equidistantly positioned punched holes (26), the second end is capable of being removably assembled to a structure (28, Fig. 3), the segment is capable of being looped about the structure and the button is inserted into one of the holes to secure the segment to the structure (Fig. 3), and adjusting the length of the segment depending on which of the holes the button is inserted (12, 26).
However, with regards to claims 1 and 3, Agase et al. fail disclose a connection means that is an adapter loop that attaches the device to a station, the loop having a long loop at one end, a short loop at an opposite end, a solid rectangular section in the between the loops that separates and closes each loop, and the short loop is pulled through the long loop about the station.
Marchant teaches it is known in the art of connection means to incorporate an adapter loop (10) that attaches to a station (Fig. 2), the loop having a long loop at one end (18), a short loop at an opposite end (16), and a solid rectangular section in the between the loops that separates and closes each loop (20), and the short loop is pulled through the long loop about the station (Fig. 2). [Fynbo et al. provide evidence that it is known in the art of feeding devices to have a setup incorporating a utensil making up one contiguous segment (1409, 1412, Fig. 14) with the second end of the segment being connected to a connection means (212A, 1406) which, in turn, connects to the station (Fig. 14). Fynbo et al. teach it is known to have a connecting means in-between and connecting the segment to the station. Fynbo et al. also teach it is known to swap out utensils to allow for other tools for the user and to swap out connecting means for alternative structures that perform the same functions.] It would have been well within one’s technical skill to have utilized any known connection means to connect the segment via the notch system to the station including the known loop. In this case, Modified Agase et al. incorporate the notch system which forms the loop that loops around and connects to the small loop of loop adapter. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to have provided Agase et al. with the connecting means, as taught by Marchant, because all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results.
With regards to claim 7, Agase et al. in view of Marchant fail to disclose the specific materials capable of enabling secure attachment while maintaining child-safe properties during extended use in various feeding environments.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have utilized any reasonable and known material including the claimed materials, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the device of in view of Marchant to obtain the invention as specified in claim 7. The claim would have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6-6-25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The rejection of Fynbo et al. in view of Agase et al. incorporates the utensil (Fig. 3) of Agase et al. connected via the second end (10 in Agase et al.) to the connection means (1406, 212A) of Fynbo et al.
With regards to the “unified” argument on page 4 the paragraph starting with “To start” and the paragraph starting with “Also”, Fynbo et al. and Agase et al. on their own and in combination disclose the claimed one unified continuous segment. While Fynbo et al. in view of Agase et al. is assembled to create the one continuous segment, there is nothing in the claim that requires a one-piece construction of the segment or prevents assembled construction from being considered a continuous segment. Also, just because assembled structures are shown does not mean that Fynbo et al. and Agase et al. are teaching away from a one-piece segment construction. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., contiguous segment is of one-piece construction) is not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
With regards to page 4 the paragraph starting with “Secondly”, Fynbo et al. is not used for the length adjustment limitation. Agase et al. is utilized for the length adjustment limitation. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
With regards to page 5 the paragraph starting with “Additonally” and “Finally”, Fynbo et al. teach alternative tools (Figs. 1A, 1B, 7, 14) and one skilled in the art would replace utensil (1412, 1409) with any reasonable utensil including one that performs a use intended for the apparatus. Utensil 1412 of Fynbo et al. is for eating (abstract lines 1-2) and it would have been obvious to have swapped out utensil 1412 and 1409 with any other reasonable and known utensil including the utensil of Agase et al. which has the ability to connect to the connecting means/suction cup apparatus. The claim does not incorporate any limitations that prevent Fynbo et al.’s mat system with multiple anchors from being present. Fynbo et al. discloses the connection means (1406, 212A) that is a suction cup apparatus (212A) having a suction cup base (Fig. 2C) and a ring (1406). It is noted that claim 1 does not disclose a suction cup. Claim 1 only discloses a connection means.
With regards to page 5 the paragraph starting with “Regarding” and page 7 paragraph starting with “Fifth”, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have utilized any reasonable and known material including the claimed materials, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
With regards to loop combination, the same reasoning is applied as the previous rejection with Fynbo et al. providing evidence of the segment attached to a connector means which is connected to a station. It would have been obvious, in light of Fynbo et al.’s evidence to connect the segment of Agase et al. to the any reasonable connecting means including the loop of Marchant. It is noted Marchant has the claimed limitations of the loop as shown regardless of the additional parts disclosed by Applicant in the arguments. The loop claims do not currently disclose any limitations that prevent the use of Marchant. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
With regards to pages 6-7, Marchant discloses the loop limitations as claimed. While only 3 loop components are claimed, this does not prevent Marchant utilized in the rejection. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., fixed and immovable rectangular section) is not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Marchant’s ability to attach to a rope, pole, bar, cord, or the like is not evidence of Marchant teaching away from attaching to the end of Agase et al. In fact, the “or the like” option supports attaching to the end of Agase et al. Marchant does disclose the short loop being pulled through the long loop in Figure 2.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON DANIEL PRONE whose telephone number is (571)272-4513. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday: 7:30 am-3:30 pm.
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, Adam J Eiseman can be reached on (571)270-3818. 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.
27 June 2025
/Jason Daniel Prone/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724