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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/03/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim 1
Applicant argues that Bateman does not disclose the center of gravity as an independent optimization variable and instead also relies on the geometry of the shield to achieve the desired retention of the pacifier and that “Bateman's desired result (COG placement for retention) and applies it to Hakim's convex-shield architecture without adopting the structural and functional features Bateman teaches as necessary to achieve that result-namely, the concave, face-conforming shield and associated contact perimeter/adhesive-force mechanism… Bateman's retention teaching cannot be transplanted into a fundamentally different geometry while discarding the very principles under which Bateman explains that retention is achieved . Doing so requires a reconstruction that changes Bateman's principle of operation as relied upon by the Office”. The Office respectfully disagrees. While Bateman does teach a benefit for both the center of mass location and the shape of the shield, these do not appear to be tied together as applicant has argued. Bateman states “Indeed, the position of the centre of mass of the pacifier is important for retention of the teat within the mouth. In particular, force analysis has showed that tongue pressure, when not sucking, increases the reaction force on the palate. This reaction has a component that directs the pacifier out of the mouth. Also, positioning of the centre of mass may cause the pacifier to rotate which could propagate ejection of the pacifier. So, ideally, the centre of mass should reside between the lips and gums. The shield also forms part of the contact perimeter, the size of which contributes to the adhesive force. Accordingly, the surface of the shield that contacts the face may include a texture in the form of a micro-texture (pg. 10 ln. 5-14). The adhesive force referenced for the shape of the shield is in addition to saliva that provides an adhesive force (pg. 8 ln. 26) not the center of mass. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the benefit of having the center of mass in a position that reduces the probability of the device falling fr4om an infant’s mouth regardless of the shape of the shield. Thus, The Office maintains that it would be obvious to modify Hakim to have the center of mass taught by Bateman for the purpose of improving retention of the teat within the mouth.
Applicant further argues “The Office further states that modifying Hakim to satisfy the claimed center-of-gravity limitation ‘could be accomplished a number of ways (that do not include shield shape),’ for example by ‘material, weight, length, size, etc.’ Respectfully, this is a hindsight-driven reconstruction of the prior art, not the type of reasoned explanation required to establish a prima facie case of obviousness” And “The Office's "number of ways" statement is precisely the kind of capability-based reasoning Gordon rejects: it does not identify which of the many possible modifications a skilled artisan would have selected, why that particular modification would have been selected in view of the prior art, or how the prior art teaches implementing it in Hakim to achieve the claimed center-of-gravity arrangement for retention”. The Office respectfully disagrees. Bateman expressly discloses how the center of mass can be positioned in the desired location that is not linked to the shape of the shield. Specifically “A reduction in the weight of the shield also assists in moving the centre of mass of the pacifier inside the mouth which, in turn, improves retention of the teat in the mouth without assistance from a hand” (pg. 10 ln. 1-3). Therefore the prior art does teach one of ordinary skill in the art how to select and implement the location of the center of mass. 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).
The Office notes that the claim limitation applicant is arguing “the pacifier is configured such that a center of gravity of the pacifier lies in a region which extends from the tip of the mouthpiece, along the axial length of the mouthpiece and along up to 50% of the axial length of the shield” is essentially claiming that the center of gravity of the device is located at a position along a majority of the device. Furthermore, this claimed location of the center of gravity is not critical according to the specification and numerous different locations are discussed with the benefit being the pacifier has better retention in the mouth of the user. This is also why Bateman has their center of mass at the taught location. This claim limitation is not claiming a very specific location nor any specific reason not in the prior art for it position.
Claim 10
Applicant argues that the prior art doesn’t teach the mouthpiece is weighted such that a weight of the mouthpiece is greater than a weight of the shield. Specifically “the Office improperly equates contact location with center-of-mass location. The location where a product contacts a user, such as where the lips touch the shield, has no bearing on where the product's center of mass is located… Bateman does not teach that the center of mass is located at the mouthpiece-shield junction, nor that incidental lip contact constrains or defines center-of-mass placement”. The Office respectfully disagrees. Bateman expressly teaches “the centre of mass should reside between the lips and gums”. This directly relates the location of the center of mass to the location where the users lips and gums are located. It is well known that in use an infant places the teat of the pacifier in their month and their lips contact the junction between the teat and the mount shield. This means that Bateman does teach that the center of mass is located at the mouthpiece-shield junction.
Applicant further argues “the Office's interpretation of "between the lips and the gums" is unreasonably divorced from context. Bateman discusses center-of-mass placement in the context of resisting ejection of the teat from the mouth. A person of ordinary skill would understand this language to refer to placement within the oral cavity as it relates to retention of the mouthpiece, not incidental exterior contact with the shield. Construing this phrase to encompass any structure touched by the lips improperly expands Bateman beyond its intended functional disclosure”. The Office respectfully disagrees. Bateman does not state this and instead states “the centre of mass should reside between the lips and gums”.
Applicant even further argues “he Office fails to address Applicant's geometrical point and instead relies on an unsupported assumption about relative weight. In its prior response, Applicant explained that even if the mouthpiece and the shield had equal weight, Bateman's concave shield geometry could still place the center of mass in or toward the mouthpiece region, depending on distance from the reference point. Center of mass is a function of both weight and spatial distribution. The Office does not refute this principle, nor does it cite any disclosure in Bateman establishing that the shield must outweigh the mouthpiece to achieve the described center-of-mass placement. Ignoring geometry while asserting a weight requirement is analytically incorrect”. The Office respectfully disagrees. As explained above, Hakim is modified to have the center of mass located at the location taught in Bateman (between the lips and the gums) regardless of the geometry of the shield. As also explained above this can be achieved by reducing the weight of the shield, as Bateman teaches, without changing the geometry of the shield. Hakim is modified to have the center of mass located at the location taught in Bateman. This location, between the lips and the gums which under broadest reasonable interpretation would include any portion between the lips and the gums and in use the lips of a user touch the center of the shield, specifically where the mouthpiece is connected to the shield, the center of mass can be located here. Since this location is entirely pas the mouthpiece, the shield must weight more than the mouthpiece to have a center of mass in this location.
Claim 20
Applicant argues that “he Office's rejection improperly equates user contact with center-of-mass placement. Again, a center of mass is determined solely by mass distribution and geometry, not by where an object is touched during use. Bateman's statement that the center of mass may reside "between the lips and the gums" is made in the context of mouthpiece retention within the oral cavity and does not reasonably encompass incidental exterior shield contact”. The Office respectfully disagrees. Regardless of applicant’s opinion that the center of mass is only based on the geometry, Bateman expressly states “the centre of mass should reside between the lips and gums”. This disclosure alone is enough to conclude that the center of mass is located between the lips and gums when the pacifier is in use.
Claims 5 and 6
Applicant argues that the prior art does not recognize the angle of the shield as a result effective variable. The Office respectfully disagrees. A result effective variable is a variable that achieves a recognized result. Eden teaches that the shield is curved to ben away from the child’s mouth., This curve comprises an angle. Eden further teaches this curve has the recognized result of not leaving red marks on the child’s face. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the angle of this curve would impact the number of red marks on the face as it impacts how much of the shield can touch the face. Thus, The Office maintains that the angle of the shield is a result effective variable. Furthermore, The Office notes that the angle of the shield is not critical as the applicant’s specification provides different ranges than that claimed for which the angle could be.
Claim 18
Applicant argues the shield of Tesini does not include the handle 18 because it is referred to as a separate part. The Office respectfully disagrees. The Office has defined the claimed shield as 12+18 of Tesini. Tesini is not required to use the same language as the claims to refer to their parts and the claims do not limit the shield from being a shield plus the attached handle. Thu The Office maintains Tesini teaches the limitations of claim 18.
Claim Interpretation
The Office notes that the term “distal” is interpreted consistent with the specification as “away”.
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 1-4, 7-12, 16, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hakim (WO 2013170264 A1) in view of Bateman (WO 2019162441 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 10, 16, and 17 Hakim discloses (fig. 1-6 and 14) an infant pacifier comprising:
a curved shield 16 having a central axis extending therethrough (see fig. 1 and pg. 10 second paragraph),
a mouthpiece 22 extending from a substantially convex side of the shield and along the central axis (see fig. 4-5 and pg. 10 second paragraph), for insertion into an infant's mouth (see ph. 9 last paragraph – pg. 10 first paragraph), wherein the mouthpiece 22 comprises a first end adjacent to the shield 16 and a tip distal from the shield 16 (see fig. 5);
wherein the shield 16 and the mouthpiece 22 each have an axial length (see fig. 5).
Hakim is silent regarding the pacifier is configured such that a center of gravity of the pacifier lies in a region which extends from the tip of the mouthpiece, along the axial length of the mouthpiece and along up to 50% of the axial length of the shield; the mouthpiece is weighted such that a weight of the mouthpiece is greater than a weight of the shield; the center of gravity lies in a region which extends from the first end of the mouthpiece along up to 35% of the axial length of the shield; the center of gravity lies in a region which extends from the first end of the mouthpiece along up to 25% of the axial length of the shield.
However Bateman, in the same field of endeavor, teaches (fig. 1-4) an infant pacifier comprising: a curved shield 20 having a central axis extending therethrough (see fig. 1 and 3), a mouthpiece 10 extending along the central axis (see fig. 1 and 3), for insertion into an infant's mouth (see pg. 5 ln. 28-33), wherein the mouthpiece 10 comprises a first end adjacent to the shield and a tip distal from the shield 20 (see fig. 3); wherein the shield 20 and the mouthpiece each have an axial length (see fig. 1 and 3), and wherein the pacifier is configured such that a center of gravity of the pacifier lies in a region which extends from the tip of the mouthpiece, along the axial length of the mouthpiece and along up to 50% of the axial length of the shield (see pg. 10 ln. 5-10; the lips of the infant touch the shield and the gums are positioned further back along the mouthpiece, therefore a center of gravity of the pacifier lies in a region which extends from the tip of the mouthpiece, along the axial length of the mouthpiece and along up to 50% of the axial length of the shield);
the mouthpiece is weighted such that a weight of the mouthpiece is greater than a weight of the shield (the center of mass of the pacifier can be located in the mouthpiece, thereof it must weigh more than the shield, see pg. 10 ln. 5-10);
the center of gravity lies in a region which extends from the first end of the mouthpiece along up to 35% of the axial length of the shield (see pg. 10 ln. 5-10; the lips of the infant touch the shield and the gums are positioned further back along the mouthpiece, therefore a center of gravity of the pacifier lies in a region which extends from the tip of the mouthpiece, along the axial length of the mouthpiece and along up to 35% of the axial length of the shield);
the center of gravity lies in a region which extends from the first end of the mouthpiece along up to 25% of the axial length of the shield (see pg. 10 ln. 5-10; the lips of the infant touch the shield and the gums are positioned further back along the mouthpiece, therefore a center of gravity of the pacifier lies in a region which extends from the tip of the mouthpiece, along the axial length of the mouthpiece and along up to 25% of the axial length of the shield).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Hakim to have the pacifier is configured such that a center of gravity of the pacifier lies in a region which extends from the tip of the mouthpiece, along the axial length of the mouthpiece and along up to 50% of the axial length of the shield; the mouthpiece is weighted such that a weight of the mouthpiece is greater than a weight of the shield; the center of gravity lies in a region which extends from the first end of the mouthpiece along up to 35% of the axial length of the shield; the center of gravity lies in a region which extends from the first end of the mouthpiece along up to 25% of the axial length of the shield as taught by Bateman, for the purpose of the pacifier being able to stay in the mouth of the user (see Bateman pg. 10 ln. 5-10).
Regarding claim 2, Hakim as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1. Hakim further discloses (fig. 1-6 and 14) the shield comprises a center portion (portion 22 is connected to) with the central axis therethrough (see fig. 5), first and second side portions (left and right portion of 16) opposingly arranged either side of the center portion (see fig. 4), and a shield edge region (edge of 16) distal from the center portion (the edge of 16 can be seen to be away from the central portion, see fig. 4).
Regarding claim 3, Hakim as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 2. Hakim further discloses (fig. 1-6 and 14) the mouthpiece 22 is mounted to the center portion of the shield 16 (see fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, Hakim as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 2. Hakim further discloses (fig. 1-6 and 14) the first side portion is configured to curve away from the mouthpiece 22 towards a first section of the shield edge region (left side extending to edge of 16, see fig. 1), and the second side portion is configured to curve away from the mouthpiece 22 towards a second section of the shield edge region (right side extending to edge of 16, see fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, Hakim as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1. Hakim further discloses (fig. 1-6 and 14) the shield 16 further comprises a substantially concave side, opposingly arranged to the substantially convex side (see fig. 14).
Regarding claim 8, Hakim as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 7. Hakim further discloses (fig. 1-6 and 14) the substantially concave side comprises: a region of discontinuous material (18 extends through the concave side form a discontinuous material; see fig. 5 and pg. 10 second paragraph).
Regarding claim 9, Hakim as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 7. Hakim further discloses (fig. 1-6 and 14) the substantially concave side includes at least one reinforcing rib 12 (see fig. 3).
Regarding claim 11, Hakim as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1. Hakim further discloses (fig. 1-6 and 14) the curved shield comprises at least one air hole 18 extending therethrough (see fig. 1-3 and pg. 10 second paragraph).
Regarding claim 12, Hakim as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 11. Hakim further discloses (fig. 1-6 and 14) each air hole each has a cross-sectional area (see fig. 1-3).
Hakim is silent regarding the aggregate cross-sectional area of the air holes is at least 25% of a footprint area of the shield.
However Bateman further teaches (fig. 1-4) the curved shield comprises at least one air hole 22 extending therethrough (see fig. 2, 4, and pg. 13 ln. 1-9); each air 22 hole each has a cross-sectional area and wherein the aggregate cross-sectional area of the air holes is at least 25% of a footprint area of the shield (see fig. 2, 4, and claim 19).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Hakim to have the aggregate cross-sectional area of the air holes is at least 25% of a footprint area of the shield as taught by Bateman, for the purpose of increasing the ability of the user to breath (see Bateman pg. 13 ln. 1-9 and claim 9).
Regarding claim 20, Hakim discloses (fig. 1-6 and 14) An infant pacifier comprising:
a curved shield 16 having a central axis extending therethrough (see fig. 1 and pg. 10 second paragraph),
a mouthpiece 22 extending from a substantially convex side of the shield and along the central axis (see fig. 4-5 and pg. 10 second paragraph), for insertion into an infant's mouth (see ph. 9 last paragraph – pg. 10 first paragraph), wherein the mouthpiece 22 comprises a first end adjacent to the shield 16 and a tip distal from the shield 16 (see fig. 5);
wherein the shield 16 and the mouthpiece 22 each have an axial length extending between innermost and outermost axial limits (see fig. 5).
Hakim is silent regarding the pacifier is configured such that a center of gravity of the pacifier lies in a region which extends from an innermost limit of the shield along up to 50% of the axial length of the shield.
However Bateman, in the same field of endeavor, teaches (fig. 1-4) an infant pacifier comprising: a curved shield 20 having a central axis extending therethrough (see fig. 1 and 3), a mouthpiece 10 extending along the central axis (see fig. 1 and 3), for insertion into an infant's mouth (see pg. 5 ln. 28-33), wherein the mouthpiece 10 comprises a first end adjacent to the shield and a tip distal from the shield 20 (see fig. 3); wherein the shield 20 and the mouthpiece each have an axial length (see fig. 1 and 3), and wherein the pacifier is configured such that a center of gravity of the pacifier lies in a region which extends from an innermost limit of the shield along up to 50% of the axial length of the shield (see pg. 10 ln. 5-10; the lips of the infant touch the shield and the gums are positioned further back along the mouthpiece, therefore a center of gravity of the pacifier lies in a region which extends from the tip of the mouthpiece, along the axial length of the mouthpiece and along up to 50% of the axial length of the shield);
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Hakim to have the pacifier is configured such that a center of gravity of the pacifier lies in a region which extends from an innermost limit of the shield along up to 50% of the axial length of the shield as taught by Bateman, for the purpose of the pacifier being able to stay in the mouth of the user (see Bateman pg. 10 ln. 5-10).
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hakim in view of Bateman as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Eerden (US 20160296424 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Hakim as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 4. Hakim further discloses (fig. 1-6 and 14) each of the first and second sections (left and right) of the shield edge region are angled away from the mouthpiece at an angle with respect to the central axis (see fig. 5).
Hakim as modified fails to expressly disclose the angle is at least 120° with respect to the central axis.
Eerden sets forth that the angle of the first and second sections relative to the mouthpiece is a result effective variable, wherein the greater the angle, the less red marks are left on a child’s mouth (Eerden [0011]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the angle of the first and second sections of the shield edge region be angled away from the mouthpiece be at least 120° with respect to the central axis, for the purpose of reducing marks on the infant’s face, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 6, Hakim as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 4. Hakim further discloses (fig. 1-6 and 14) at least one section of the shield edge region slopes away from the mouthpiece (see fig. 4-5) at an angle of from 130° to 160°.
Hakim as modified fails to expressly disclose the angle is from 130° to 160°.
Eerden sets forth that the angle that at least one section slopes away from the mouthpiece is a result effective variable, wherein the greater the angle, the less red marks are left on a child’s mouth (Eerden [0011]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the angle that at least one section slopes away from the mouthpiece be 130° to 160° with respect to the central axis, for the purpose of reducing marks on the infant’s face, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hakim in view of Bateman as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schofield et al. (US 20100312276 A1).
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Hakim as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1. Hakim as modified is silent regarding the curved shield is a rigid frame co-moulded or over-moulded with a flexible material; the flexible material also forms at least one of the mouthpiece and a handle.
However Schofield, in the same filed of endeavor, teaches (fig. 2a-2c) a curved shield 22 which is a rigid frame co-moulded or over-moulded with a flexible material (see [0065]); the flexible material also forms at least a mouthpiece 20 (see [0059], [0070]-[0071]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Hakim as modified to have the curved shield is a rigid frame co-moulded or over-moulded with a flexible material; the flexible material also the mouthpiece as taught by Schofield, for the purpose providing a strong bond allowing the mouthpiece to be secured to the shield solely by the interconnection between the components thereby removing the need to include a plug or any other additional components (see Schofield [0059]).
Regarding claim 15, Hakim as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1. Hakim as modified is silent regarding at least the mouthpiece and the shield are formed as a unitary part.
However Schofield, in the same filed of endeavor, teaches at least a mouthpiece and a shield are formed as a unitary part (see [0059]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Hakim as modified to have at least the mouthpiece and the shield are formed as a unitary part as taught by Schofield, for the purpose providing a strong bond allowing the mouthpiece to be secured to the shield solely by the interconnection between the components thereby removing the need to include a plug or any other additional components (see Schofield [0059]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hakim in view of Bateman as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tesini et al. (US 20110218569 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Hakim as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1. Hakim as modified is silent regarding the axial length of the shield is at least 10 mm.
However Tesini, in the same filed of endeavor, teaches an axial length of a shield is at least 10 mm (see fig. 1C).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Hakim as modified to have the axial length of the shield is at least 10 mm as taught by Tesini, for the purpose of having sufficient length for the caregiver to hold on to and manipulate the pacifier (see [0017]).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sundkvist (US 4,324,249) in view of Bateman.
Regarding claim 21, Sundkvist discloses (fig. 1-3) a method of manufacturing an infant pacifier, the method comprising:
forming a curved shield 4 having a central axis extending therethrough (see fig. 1 and col. 2 ln. 1-8; the disc 4 exists therefore it is formed), mounting a mouthpiece 5 to a substantially convex side of the shield 4 and along the central axis (see fig. 1-3 and col. 2 ln. 9-17), for insertion into an infant's mouth (teats are designed for insertion into an infant’s mouth), wherein the mouthpiece comprises a first end adjacent to the shield and a tip distal from the shield (see fig. 3); wherein the shield and the mouthpiece each have an axial length (see fig. 1-3).
Sundkvist is silent regarding the pacifier is configured such that a center of gravity of the pacifier lies in a region which extends from the tip of the mouthpiece, along the axial length of the mouthpiece and along up to 50% of the axial length of the shield.
However Bateman, in the same field of endeavor teaches (fig. 1-4) an infant pacifier comprising: a curved shield 20 having a central axis extending therethrough (see fig. 1 and 3), a mouthpiece 10 extending along the central axis (see fig. 1 and 3), for insertion into an infant's mouth (see pg. 5 ln. 28-33), wherein the mouthpiece 10 comprises a first end adjacent to the shield and a tip distal from the shield 20 (see fig. 3); wherein the shield 20 and the mouthpiece each have an axial length (see fig. 1 and 3), and wherein the pacifier is configured such that a center of gravity of the pacifier lies in a region which extends from the tip of the mouthpiece, along the axial length of the mouthpiece and along up to 50% of the axial length of the shield (see pg. 10 ln. 5-10; the lips of the infant touch the shield and the gums are positioned further back along the mouthpiece, therefore a center of gravity of the pacifier lies in a region which extends from the tip of the mouthpiece, along the axial length of the mouthpiece and along up to 50% of the axial length of the shield).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Sundkvist to have the pacifier configured such that a center of gravity of the pacifier lies in a region which extends from the tip of the mouthpiece, along the axial length of the mouthpiece and along up to 50% of the axial length of the shield as taught by Bateman, for the purpose improving retention of the pacifier in the users mouth (see Bateman pg. 10 ln. 1-10).
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 KATHERINE H SCHWIKER whose telephone number is (571)272-9503. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am-4:00 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, Darwin Erezo can be reached at (571) 272-4695. 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.
/KATHERINE H SCHWIKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771
Prosecution Insights