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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the reply filed on 7/7/2025, wherein claims 1, 16,18 were amended, claims 2-5,11-14 are cancelled. Claims 1,6-10,15-18 are pending.
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 1 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. Claim 1 states "wherein switching from one mode to another by operation of the button is enabled The original disclosure discusses a button only in [0050], [0061], [0113] of the specification. At no point is it stated that the bottle must be placed upright on the base for switching from one mode to another via the button. Claims 6-10, 15-18 (dependents) directly or indirectly depend from claim 1 and are also rejected.
Claim 16 is 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. Claim 16 states "wherein the processor is further configured to receive... information on a status of the formulating mode and the feeding mode based on an operation of the button and a value measured by the inclination sensor in the formulating mode". This is not disclosed in the as filed disclosure. In [0061], the button is discussed to "switch between the formulating mode and the feeding mode". There is no clear statement that insinuates that the button and the inclination sensor work together to determine the mode. In fact [113] insinuates that the button overrides the inclination sensor. As shaking the bottle (in formulating mode) can falsely be interpreted as "feeding mode" by the inclination sensor. Therefore, the button and the inclination sensor do not work together to determine the mode of operation.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 9-10, 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wood (S 20210212901 A1) in view of Lee and Yun (US 20200196782 A1), Tiemann (EP3827748A1) and Briones (US 20160327427 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Wood discloses an apparatus comprising: a bottle (32) for containing liquid; and a base (10) disposed under the bottle, wherein the base includes: a weight measurement sensor (page 6 [0053]) an inclination sensor (page 4 [0045]) for measuring an inclination of the bottle; and a controller (cpu page 4 [0043]) that includes a processor configured to perform controller processes by receiving information on the weight of the bottle from the weight measurement sensor and by receiving information on the inclination of the bottle from the inclination sensor (page 4 [0045]), the processor further configured to determine a start of feeding based on the information of the inclination of the bottle when the bottle is tilted at an angle greater than or equal to a preset angle for a time greater than or equal to a preset time (page 1 [0006] and page 4 [0045]), determine an end of feeding based on the information on the inclination of the bottle when the bottle is tilted at an angle less than or equal to the preset angle after a preset duration (page 4 [0045]).
Wood failed to disclose of a button, wherein the button is configured to be operated to switch between a formulating mode of the controller and a feeding mode of the controller [and wherein switching from one mode to another by operation of the button is enabled only when the bottle is placed upright on the base, the switching from one mode to another being disabled during feeding to prevent erroneous data recording and unintended mode switching – disregarded as pertaining to new matter, see 112a above]. However, in a similar field of endeavor, namely baby bottles, Lee and Yun taught of a baby bottle with a button (221) that switches between formulation mode and feeding mode (page 3 [0047] and page 4 [0063]). Woods uses an alternate method to switch between formulation mode and feeding method. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of infant bottles before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the button for switching between formulating mode and feeding mode as taught by Lee and Yun for method for determining feeding vs formulating mode as disclosed by Wood since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, with the difference being the substitution of the elements. In the present case, a button would be a mechanical feature that does not require computation, and would allow for gentler shakes of the bottle to not be recorded as feeding. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the one known element for the other to produce a predictable result (MPEP 2143).
Wood failed to disclose of an elastic body that is elastically deformed by the weight of the bottle and the base; and a weight measurement sensor disposed above the elastic body and measuring the weight of the bottle by measuring a pressure that the elastic body transfers in a vertical direction from the ground as a reaction to gravity. However, in a similar field of endeavor, namely smart bottles, Briones taught of a weight sensor that measure weight by recording the pressure of a deformable plate (page 6 [0067]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of smart bottles before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a weight measurement sensor as taught by Brione in the system of Wood since the claimed invention is only a combination of these old and well-known elements which would have performed the same function in combination as each did separately. In the present case Wood teaches a weight sensor and adding the specific sensor as taught by Brione would maintain the same functionality of Wood, making the results predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143).
Wood failed to disclose calculate the amount of fed milk based by calculating a reduction in the weight of the bottle based on the information on the weight of the bottle received upon the start of feeding and the information on the weight of the bottle received upon the end of feeding, wherein the controller is configured to transmit information on the calculated amount to a terminal. However, in a similar field of endeavor, namely feeding bottles, Tiemann taught of a baby bottle that can calculate the milk volume consumed by the infant and be displayed in an app for parents (page 1 [0002]). Presently Wood is equipped with the sensors to do so, so this would be a simple modification in Woods cpu to perform said tasks. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of baby bottles before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the calculated amount of milk fed as taught by Tiemann in the CPU of Wood since the claimed invention is only a combination of these old and well-known elements which would have performed the same function in combination as each did separately. In the present case the combination of Wood and Briones teaches a CPU with multiple weight measurements and adding a calculated amount milk fed as taught by Tiemann would maintain the same functionality of the combination of Wood and Briones, making the results predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143).
With respect to claim 9, Wood discloses wherein the inclination sensor includes at least one of a gyro sensor or an acceleration sensor, and the controller calculates a value of inclination based on information on an angular velocity measured by the gyro sensor or based on information on an acceleration measured by the acceleration sensor. (page 1 [0008] or figures 15-16c)
With respect to claim 10, Wood in view of Brione and Tiemann discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the weight measurement sensor includes at least one of a beam-type load cell, a three-wire load cell, and a columnar load cell. This is taught by the abstract of Briones.
With respect to claim 15, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims except for the base further includes a temperature sensor for measuring a temperature of the liquid contained in the bottle, the temperature sensor configured to provide information on the temperature of the liquid to the processor, wherein the temperature sensor is positioned on a protrusion formed on an upper side of the base such that the temperature sensor is disposed higher than a lowermost surface of the bottle, and wherein the processor is further configured to periodically transmit the information on the inclination of the bottle and the information on the temperature of the liquid to the terminal. However, in a similar field of endeavor, namely infant bottles, Lee and Yun taught of a bottle that includes a temperatures sensor as structured in the claims (higher than a lower surface) (page 4 [0051]) and transmit temperature and inclination date to the terminal (page 2 [0035]). It would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the bottle of Wood to include a temperature sensor as taught by Lee and Yun in order to allow for further data collection such as the temperature of the contents of the bottle.
With respect to claim 16, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims except for wherein the processor is further configured to receive, from the terminal, information on a feeding temperature set by a user of the terminal, information on a formulating temperature set by the user of the terminal, and information on a status of the formulating mode and the feeding mode based on operation of the button and a value measured by the inclination sensor (page 4 [0045 of Wood] teaches of inclination sensor, Lee and Yun teach of incorporation of a button to set a feeding/formulating mode, refer to claim 1 rejection above for combination rationale). However, in a similar field of endeavor, namely infant bottles, Lee and Yun taught of a bottle that includes a temperatures sensor as structured in the claims (higher than a lower surface) (page 4 [0051]) and transmit temperature and inclination date to the terminal (page 2 [0035]) including a set temperature (page 6 [0083]) (page 2 [0016]), and information on switching between the formulating mode and the feeding mode (page 7 [0090]). This information helps in formula preparation, to allow for optimal temperatures for feeding mode (page 2 [0016]). It would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the bottle of Wood to configure the terminal to include information on temperatures with respect to formulating and feeding mode as taught by Lee and Yun in order to allow the user to regulate the temperature of the contents during feeding and formulating mode.
With respect to claim 17, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims except for wherein the base further includes a heater having a plate shape for heating the liquid contained in the bottle, the heater disposed so as to be spaced apart from the temperature sensor, and wherein the controller is further configured to operate the heater in the formulating mode until the temperature of the bottle reaches a formulating temperature and to operate the heater in the feeding mode to maintain a feeding temperature. However, in a similar field of endeavor, namely infant bottles, Lee and Yun taught of a plate shaped heater (page 4 [0057]) and the controller controls the heater to maintain a feeding temperature during formulation and feeding. It would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the bottle of Wood to configure the terminal to include a heater controlled by the controller with respect to formulating and feeding mode as taught by Lee and Yun in order to allow the user to regulate the temperature of the contents during feeding and formulating mode for appropriate usage.
Examiner Note: Although not directly stated, it can be understood that the heater and the temperature sensor of Lee and Yun are spaced apart. This enables accurate measurements of the temperature readings of the contents within the bottle.
With respect to claim 18, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims except for wherein the processor is further configured to receive information on a recommended formulating temperature from the terminal, and wherein the controller is further configured to initially operate the heater according to the formulating temperature and the feeding temperature and to reset the formulating temperature according to the recommended formulating temperature received from the terminal.. However, in a similar field of endeavor, namely infant bottles, Lee and Yun taught of a bottle that includes a temperatures sensor as structured in the claims (higher than a lower surface) (page 4 [0051]) and transmit temperature and inclination date to the terminal (page 2 [0035]) including a set temperature (page 6 [0083]) (page 2 [0016]), and information on switching between the formulating mode and the feeding mode (page 7 [0090]). This information helps in formula preparation, to allow for optimal temperatures for feeding mode (page 2 [0016]). It would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the bottle of Wood to configure the terminal to include information on temperatures with respect to formulating and feeding mode as taught by Lee and Yun in order to allow the user to regulate the temperature of the contents during feeding and formulating mode.
With respect to claim 18, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims except for wherein the processor is further configured to receive information on setting a recommended formulating temperature from the terminal, and wherein the controller is further configured to initially operate the heater according to the formulating temperature and the feeding temperature and to reset the formulating temperature according to the recommended formulating temperature received from the terminal. However, in a similar field of endeavor, namely infant bottles, Lee and Yun taught of a bottle whose temperature has a preset and can be overwritten by the terminal (page 3 [0038] and page 6 [0083]). This information helps in formula preparation, to allow for optimal temperatures for feeding mode (page 2 [0016]). It would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the bottle of Wood to configure the terminal to include information on temperatures with respect to formulating and feeding mode as taught by Lee and Yun in order to allow the user to regulate the temperature of the contents during feeding and formulating mode.
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wood (S 20210212901 A1) in view of Lee and Yun (US 20200196782 A1), Tiemann (EP3827748A1), Briones (US 20160327427 A1), and Nguyen (US 20200029714 A1).
With respect to claim 6, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims except for wherein the base further includes an ultraviolet (UV-C) lamp for sterilizing the contents in the bottle by emitting ultraviolet light toward the bottle. However, in a similar field of endeavor, namely smart bottles, Nguyen taught of a bottle that cleans itself via an ultraviolet lamp for cleaning purposes (abstract). It would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the smart bottle of Wood in view of Tiemann and Briones to include a UV-C light as taught by Nguyen in order to allow for cleaning of the bottle.
With respect to claim 7, the references as applied to claim 6, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims, Nguyen further teaches wherein the ultraviolet lamp (UV elements) emits UV light when the weight of the bottle is equal to or greater than a threshold value. (abstract) Refer to claim 6 rejection, above, for combination rationale.
Examiner Note: “For instance, if the liquid level sensor 130 detects a change in liquid level that exceeds a particular threshold” (page 6 [0056])
With respect to claim 8, the references as applied to claim 7, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims, Nguyen further teaches the controller is further configured to drive the ultraviolet lamp to emit UV light when the inclination of the bottle deviates by less than or equal to a threshold value with respect to a vertical direction of the ground. (page 2-3 [0028] – the UV light is emitted based on inactivity – see 112b above. Or positioning of upside down)
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US-20210212901-A1, US-20200196782-A1, US-20200029714-A1, US-20180361040-A1, US-20160327427-A1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/7/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to the previous 112b, regarding "a controller... configured to determine", a broad interpretation shall be considered. For example, if "feeding" is determined by the inclination sensor it can be considered a name for a state in which the device is angled, even though actual feeding does not necessarily to take place. Changes in inclination can be due to storage positions or even preparation. It shall be viewed that “start of feeding” is nomenclature for an inclined position. So any art that has an inclination sensor can be regarded as having the ability to “determine feeding” based on the claimed limitations.
With respect to the amended material to claims 1 and 16, new matter is introduced, refer to 35 U.S.C. 112a rejection above. The material regarded as new matter has been disregarded with respect to examination. Therefore arguments pertaining to the amended material (regarded as new matter) have been disregarded for the purposes of examination. With respect to the presence of both a button and inclination sensor, Lee teaches of a device that can determine feeding and formulation mode based on either a button input or the inclination sensor. A button as taught by Lee would be an obvious incorporation with Woods device that uses just an inclination sensor. As Lee teaches of a system that uses both a button and inclination sensor.
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 extension fee 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 SYMREN K SANGHERA whose telephone number is (571)272-5305. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri.
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, Anthony Stashick can be reached on (571)272-4561. 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.
/S.K.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3735
/ERNESTO A GRANO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3735