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
Claim 1, 2, 5-15, 17-21 are pending.
Claims 2, 14, and 19 are currently amended.
Claims 3, 4, and 16 are canceled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ray (US 2812764).
Regarding claim 1, Ray discloses, A teat for a feeding bottle (Fig. 1) comprising: a base region (See annotated fig. below) configured to mount over an opening of the feeding bottle; a tip region (See annotated fig. below) having a feeding opening (27) ; and an intermediate region (See annotated fig. below) between the base region and the tip region, wherein the intermediate region comprises a
The limitation “adapted for stimulating the incisive papilla of a user when the teat is in use” is considered to be functional language. The prior art of RAY has all the structures required perform the claimed functional limitation. Hence, the prior art is inherently capable of performing the limitation. It is well settled that it is possible for functional language to define structure, but that where no distinguishing structure has been defined, the claim is not patentable and is fully met by the reference. See MPEP 2173.05(g). See also General Electric v. United States, 198 USPQ 73 which further reinforced the concept that functional language which defines no structure cannot distinguish over the prior art. The projection as annotated has all the structures as claimed and is inherently capable of performing the limitation. The teat of Ray under the broadest reasonable interpretation is inherently capable of stimulating incisive papilla of at least one user.
PNG
media_image1.png
585
636
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Ray discloses, the projection projects from the outer surface of the intermediate region perpendicular to a tip-to-base axis of the teat (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, Ray discloses, the projection surrounds the intermediate region. (Fig. 1, 3).
Regarding claim 6, Ray discloses, the teat is rotationally symmetric (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, Ray discloses, the projection is around only a portion of the intermediate region (See annotated fig.1 of claim 1).
Regarding claim 12, Ray discloses, A feeding bottle comprising a container and the teat of claim 1 (Fig. 1).
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) 8, 9, 13-15, 17-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ray (US 2812764 ).
Regarding claim 8, and 9 Ray discloses, the base region has a lip (35) but does not disclose the projection is located at a distance from the lip location in a range 8mm to 20mm and the projection is located at a distance from a tip of the teat in a range 10mm to 40mm. It would have been an obvious to have the projection is located at a distance from the lip location in a range 8mm to 20mm and the projection is located at a distance from a tip of the teat in a range 10 mm to 40mm, since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range for the purpose of better fit between the nipple and the child’s mouth. Since each user would have different location of incisive papilla, it is a matter of optimization and would provide improved flow of drink as a result of such modification. 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. See MPEP 2144.05(a).
The limitation “configured to align with an outer surface of the user when the teat is in a mouth of the user” is considered to be intended use. Examiner asserts that the recitation of intended use or purpose of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use or fulfilling said purpose, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 13, Ray disclose, projection projects radially from the outer surface of the intermediate region.
Ray discloses the general conditions of the claimed invention except for the express disclosure of wherein the projection projects radially from the outer surface of the intermediate region by a distance in a range of 1mm to 5mm . It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to have projection projects radially from the outer surface of the intermediate region by a distance in a range of 1mm to 5mm, since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range for the purpose of better fit between the nipple and the child’s mouth. 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. See MPEP 2144.05(a).
Regarding claim 14, Ray discloses, a teat comprising: a base region (See annotated fig. below), a tip region (See annotated fig. below) having a feeding opening (27), and an intermediate region (See annotated fig. below) between the base region and the tip region , wherein the intermediate region comprises a projection projecting radially from an outer surface of the intermediate region, wherein the projection extends along a length direction from the tip region to the base region
PNG
media_image1.png
585
636
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The limitation “adapted for stimulating an incisive papilla of a user when the teat is in use” is considered to be functional language. The prior art of Ray has all the structures required perform the claimed functional limitation. Hence, the prior art is inherently capable of performing the limitation. It is well settled that it is possible for functional language to define structure, but that where no distinguishing structure has been defined, the claim is not patentable and is fully met by the reference. See MPEP 2173.05(g). See also General Electric v. United States, 198 USPQ 73 which further reinforced the concept that functional language which defines no structure cannot distinguish over the prior art. The projection as annotated has all the structures as claimed and is inherently capable of performing the limitation.
While Ray does not explicitly disclose, the projection extends in a range of 2mm to 8mm, it would have been an obvious to have projection extends in a range of 2mm to 8mm since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range for the purpose of better fit between the nipple and the child’s mouth. 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. See MPEP 2144.05(a).
As a result of the modification, Ray would have a projection that would coincide with an expected position of the incisive papilla of at least one user.
Regarding claim 15, Ray discloses, the projection surrounds the intermediate region enabling the teat to be used in any rotational position (See annotated fig.1 of claim 1)..
Regarding claim 17, and 18 Ray discloses, the base region has a lip (35) but does not disclose the projection is located at a distance from the lip location in a range 8mm to 20mm and the projection is located at a distance from a tip of the teat in a range 10mm to 40mm. It would have been an obvious to have the projection is located at a distance from the lip location in a range 8mm to 20mm and the projection is located at a distance from a tip of the teat in a range 10 mm to 40mm, since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range for the purpose of better fit between the nipple and the child’s mouth. Since each user would have different location of incisive papilla, it is a matter of optimization and would provide improved flow of drink as a result of such modification. 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. See MPEP 2144.05(a).
The limitation “configured to align with an outer surface of the user when the teat is in a mouth of the user” is considered to be intended use. Examiner asserts that the recitation of intended use or purpose of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use or fulfilling said purpose, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 19, Ray discloses, the projection extends along a length direction between the tip region and the base region. With regards to the limitation “over a distance in a range of 2mm to 8mm.” while ray does not explicitly disclose this dimension, it would have been an obvious to have projection extends in a range of 2mm to 8mm since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range for the purpose of better fit between the nipple and the child’s mouth. 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. See MPEP 2144.05(a).
Regarding claim 20, Ray discloses, A feeding bottle (See annotated fig. below) comprising: a container configured to contain a liquid (Col. 2; line 28) ; and a teat (See annotated fig. below), the teat comprising :a base region (See annotated fig. below) configured to cover an opening of the container; a tip region having a feeding opening (27); and an intermediate region (See annotated fig. below) between the base region and the tip region, wherein the intermediate region comprises a projection (See annotated fig. below) projecting radially from an outer surface of the intermediate region, wherein the projection extends along a length direction from the tip region to the base region.
PNG
media_image1.png
585
636
media_image1.png
Greyscale
While Ray does not explicitly disclose, the projection extends in a range of 2mm to 8mm, it would have been an obvious to have projection extends in a range of 2mm to 8mm since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range for the purpose of better fit between the nipple and the child’s mouth. 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. See MPEP 2144.05(a).
As a result of the modification, Ray would have a projection that would coincide with an expected position of the incisive papilla of at least one user.
The limitation “The teat configured to accommodate a sucking action by a user” is considered to be intended use. Examiner asserts that the recitation of intended use or purpose of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use or fulfilling said purpose, then it meets the claim.
The limitation “adapted for stimulating the incisive papilla of a user when the teat is in use” is considered to be functional language. The prior art of Ray has all the structures required perform the claimed functional limitation. Hence, the prior art is inherently capable of performing the limitation. It is well settled that it is possible for functional language to define structure, but that where no distinguishing structure has been defined, the claim is not patentable and is fully met by the reference. See MPEP 2173.05(g). See also General Electric v. United States, 198 USPQ 73 which further reinforced the concept that functional language which defines no structure cannot distinguish over the prior art. The projection as annotated has all the structures as claimed and is inherently capable of performing the limitation.
Regarding claim 21, Ray discloses, the base region has a lip (35) but does not disclose the projection is located at a distance from the lip location in a range 8mm to 20mm and the projection is located at a distance from a tip of the teat in a range 10mm to 40mm. It would have been an obvious to have the projection is located at a distance from the lip location in a range 8mm to 20mm, since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range for the purpose of better fit between the nipple and the child’s mouth. Since each user would have different location of incisive papilla, it is a matter of optimization and would provide improved flow of drink as a result of such modification. 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. See MPEP 2144.05(a).
The limitation “configured to align with an outer surface of the user when the teat is in a mouth of the user” is considered to be intended use. Examiner asserts that the recitation of intended use or purpose of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use or fulfilling said purpose, then it meets the claim.
Claim(s) 10, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ray as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Randolph (US 7122045).
Regarding claim 10, and 11 Ray does not appear to disclose the teat is a single molded component and the teat is silicone. Randolph is in the field of endeavor and discloses a teat that is a single molded component (Fig. 4, 5, and 7; Col. 5,lines 32-62) and the teat is silicone(Col. 2; lines 3-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ray to have the teat that is a single molded component and the teat is silicone as taught by Randolph as this would allow for easy production while also providing safe and flexible material such as silicone to babies while drinking.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the functional language of claim 1 “ is not considered in determining patentability.”. However, that’s not the rejection of claim 1 states. The rejection for claim 1 addressing functional language is reproduced below:
The limitation “adapted for stimulating the incisive papilla of a user when the teat is in use” is considered to be functional language. The prior art of Ray has all the structures required perform the claimed functional limitation. Hence, the prior art is inherently capable of performing the limitation. It is well settled that it is possible for functional language to define structure, but that where no distinguishing structure has been defined, the claim is not patentable and is fully met by the reference. See MPEP 2173.05(g). See also General Electric v. United States, 198 USPQ 73 which further reinforced the concept that functional language which defines no structure cannot distinguish over the prior art. The projection as annotated has all the structures as claimed and is inherently capable of performing the limitation. The teat of Ray under the broadest reasonable interpretation is capable of stimulating incisive papilla of at least one user.
The rejection simply states, the prior art of Ray discloses a projection just as claimed invention and discloses all the structure as claimed. No where in the rejection does it say that any part of claim is not considered for determination of patentability. It is well settled that it is possible for functional language to define structure, but that where no distinguishing structure has been defined, the claim is not patentable and is fully met by the reference. See In re Swinehart, 169 USPQ 226 .
Furthermore, applicant argues that the prior art of Ray does not consider stimulation of incisive papilla. As stated in the rejection, The projection as annotated has all the structures as claimed and is capable of performing the limitation. The teat of Ray under the broadest reasonable interpretation is capable of stimulating incisive papilla of at least one user. The location of Papilla can vary based on the mouth size of the user and is inherently capable of stimulating incisive papilla of at least one user.
The applicant fails to provide structure that is distinguishable over the prior art and the prior art discloses all the limitation as claimed. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the prior art of Ray is considered to be inherently capable of performing any limitation just as the instant application.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANJIDUL ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)272-7670. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 -5:00.
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, Orlando E. Aviles can be reached at 571-270-5531. 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.
/SANJIDUL ISLAM/Examiner, Art Unit 3736
/ORLANDO E AVILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Prosecution Insights