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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/02/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 11/03/2025 (hereinafter “amendment”) has been accepted and entered. Claims 1-4 and 6-15 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claim(s) 1-4 and 6-15 are withdrawn as a result of the amendment.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samson US 2010/0163508 A1 in view of Sheu et al. US 2005/0252875 A1, herein after referred to as Samson and Sheu respectively.
Regarding claim 1 Samson discloses a teat (paragraph [0001], Figs. 1-6) for a drinking bottle (10), comprising a single integral component formed by a wall, the teat comprising:
an upper nipple portion (21 above 12 in Fig. 10 modified Fig. 1 see below) located at one end of a teat central axis, the teat central axis extending from the upper nipple portion, with a nipple opening located in the upper nipple portion (it is a conventional nipple and as such will have an opening in order to function as a nipple);
a base rim portion (20, Fig. 10 ) located at an opposite end of the teat central axis; and
a valve (16 one way valve, Figs. 1-6) formed between the upper nipple portion (above 12) and the base rim portion (20) or formed as part of the base rim portion (20),
the valve (16) having a first valve portion (16a side wall) with a first wall, and a second valve portion (16b sidewall) with a second wall, which define between them a valve opening (Fig. 1), wherein the first and second valve portions are the parts of the valve which are intended to deform in use,
wherein the first valve portion (16a) is nearer to the teat central axis than the second valve portion (16b), and
wherein the teat includes a third wall and a fourth wall each having a thickness in a cross section perpendicular to the teat central axis, taken above the valve (16), the thickness of the third wall is greater in the vicinity of the valve (16) than the thickness of said fourth wall remote from the valve in said cross section (24 the bulge, third wall portion, as shown in the vicinity of 16 in Fig. 1 is thicker than the wall thickness above said bulge which would be the fourth wall thickness).
Samson is silent to the valve having an average thickness of the second wall is greater than the average thickness of the first wall thickness.
Sheu teaches a teat for a drinking bottle (3 nipple, Figs. 3-6) with a valve (1 air inlet valve) with a first valve portion and second valve portion (shown in either side of 33 in Figs. 4A-5B forming a tapered cylinder) and that the average thickness of one side of the tapered cylinder of the valve is thicker than the other side (paragraph [0023] lines 5-8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the valve with a thicker side as taught by Sheu as doing so is well known in the art and would yield predictable results. Additionally, it will enhance the structure of the air inlet of the valve (paragraph [0023] lines 5-8).
Samson as modified discloses substantially all the limitations of the claim(s) except for which side of the valve it thicker i.e., has a greater average thickness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the outer portion (second wall) of the valve to be thicker than the inner portion (first wall), since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art.
PNG
media_image1.png
514
526
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2 Samson as modified discloses the teat of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the valve (16) comprises a duck bill valve, wherein the first valve portion is a first valve flap, the second valve portion is a second valve flap and the opening is a valve slit, (Figs. 2 and 4-6).
Regarding claim 3 Samson as modified discloses the teat of claim 2 and further discloses wherein
the first and second valve flaps (16a-b)) are oriented within 5 to 45 degrees of the teat central axis (Figs. 2 and 4-6).
Regarding claim 4 Samson as modified discloses the teat of claim 2 and further discloses wherein the second valve flap (16b) is tapered such that the wall thickness narrows towards the valve slit (Figs. 4-6).
Regarding claim 6 Samson as modified discloses the teat of claim 1 and further discloses a skirt portion (22 Fig. 10) below the upper nipple portion (21) and a waist portion (23,) below the skirt portion, wherein the waist portion connects to the base rim portion (20, Fig. 10.)
Regarding claim 7 Samson as modified discloses the teat of claim 6 and further discloses wherein said cross section is through the waist portion (Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 8 Samson as modified discloses the teat of claim 6 and further discloses wherein the waist portion (23) comprises a closed shape including an arc portion (24) said third wall thickness in the vicinity of the valve (Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 9 Samson as modified discloses the teat of claim 6 and further discloses wherein the valve (16) is at a junction between the waist portion (23) and the base rim portion (20, Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 10 Samson as modified discloses the teat of claim 1 and further discloses the second valve portion has a greater thickness than the wall thickness of the first valve portion at least in the vicinity of the valve opening (as taught by Sheu the second valve portion is thicker than the first valve portion).
Regarding claim 11 Samson as modified discloses the teat of claim 1. Samson as modified discloses substantially all the limitations of the claim(s) except for wherein the average thickness of the second wall is in the range 1.2 to 2.5 times the average thickness of the first wall. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the ratio of wall thickness be in the range of 1.2 to 2.5 times, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, and that such modifications would have involved a mere change in the proportions of components, a change in proportion is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 12 Samson as modified discloses the teat of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the average thickness of the second wall is in the range 0.25mm to 0.6mm and the average thickness of first wall is in the range 0.2mm to 0.3mm (paragraph [0027], lines 1-4). Additionally, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, and that such modifications would have involved a mere change in the size of a component, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 13 Samson as modified discloses the teat of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the third wall thickness (through the bulge at 24) is in the range 1.5 to 5 times the fourth wall thickness (Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 14 Samson as modified discloses the teat of claim 1 and further discloses the wall is silicone (paragraph [0025]).
Regarding claim 15 Samson as modified discloses the teat of claim 1 and further discloses it is for use with a feeding bottle (paragraph [0024]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/04/2025 and 11/03/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that “Sheu nor Samson, whether taken alone or in combination, show or suggest the third and fourth wall thickness in the same cross-sectional plane perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the teat”, this is a moot point as this is not what is claimed. The claim recites “having a thickness in a cross section perpendicular to the teat central axis, taken from above”. The claim does not recite “having a thickness in a plane perpendicular to the teat central axis”, the figure discloses a cross section of the teat having a thicker wall portion closer to the valve and a thinner wall section further from the valve and thusly discloses the limitations as they are claimed. The claim does not stipulate that the cross section is a singular plain, or defines the thickness of the cross section. Applicant again argues they are in a different plane, but that is not what is claimed. Applicant claims this is shown in Fig. 6, which is the line VI-VI from Fig. 4. The line VI-VI is not above the valve as is goes through sidewall 32 of the valve, which as shown, extends from the valve slit to the skirt portion. Thusly Fig. 6 does not show the third and fourth wall thickness as it is not taken above the valve but partially through it. As such the arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lauren Kmet whose telephone number is (313)446-4834. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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 at (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.
/L KMET/ Examiner, Art Unit 3735
/Anthony D Stashick/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3735