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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 29 December 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
As a result of the amendments to the claims, the 112(b) rejections over Claims 5 and 6 have been withdrawn.
All rejections not repeated in this Office Action have been withdrawn.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending in this Office Action. Claims 14-20 have been withdrawn due to being drawn to the non-elected invention.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “additional one-way valves” recited in claim 7 and 8, thereby requiring a total of three one-way valve, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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) 1-4, 9, 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braxton et al. (US 2016/0075483 A1) in view of Barnaba et al. (WO 2019/202463 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Braxton discloses an apparatus capable of feeding a person flowable food, comprising: a food container including a food storage portion containing a flowable food (semi-liquid, paragraph 51) and a first connector (fitment 302, paragraph 65) on an open end of the food storage portion, the food storage portion being compressible (flexible pouch, paragraph 60); and a feeding device including a feeding surface (400, see Fig. 4 and 8a), a food channel (314, Fig. 3c), and a second connector removably attachable to the first connector (see Fig. 8a), wherein:
the feeding surface forms a first surface (concave side) of the feeding device, and the feeding device has a second surface (convex side) opposite the first surface (see Fig. 3b).
Braxton is silent to wherein the food channel has a flexible exterior surface flap integrally formed with the feeding device on an external surface of the feeding device extending continuously from the second connector and tapering towards an opening on the first surface of the feeding surface of the feeding device to form a one-way valve, such that the flexible exterior surface flap deflects from the first surface while maintaining a smooth contour of the feeding surface to allow the flowable food to pass through the food channel to the feeding surface, when pressure is applied to the food storage portion. Barnaba is relied on to teach a feeding device that comprises a feeding surface (functional portion 12, see Fig. 1) and a flexible exterior flap (lifting flap 30, paragraph 34 and Fig. 1) integrally formed with the feeding device extending continuously and tapering towards an opening on the first surface of the feeding surface to form a one-way valve (see abstract), such that the flexible exterior surface flap deflects from the first surface while maintaining a smooth contour of the feeding surface to allow flowable food to pass through the food channel to the feed surface when pressure is applied to the food storage portion (open the cavity 20 when it is urged and to close the cavity 20 when it is not urged, see abstract). Since Braxton and Barnaba are directed to dispensing food material from a food storage portion directly onto a feeding surface (i.e. spoon) using pressure to expel the food materials, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a one-way valve having similar construction in the dispenser of Braxton for the purpose of maintaining sanitation. The modification would have resulted in the one-way valve having a flexible exterior surface flap extending from the connector and towards the feeding surface of the feeding device.
Regarding Claim 2, Braxton further teaches wherein the food container is configured such that, when the second connector is attached to the first connector, application of compressive pressure on the food storage portion expels the flowable food through the first connector and the second connector onto the feeding surface of the feeding device (paragraph 53-54).
Regarding Claim 3, Braxton further teaches wherein the food container is configured such that the compressive pressure can be applied by a person to an exterior surface of the food storage portion (paragraph 53-54).
Regarding Claim 4, Braxton further teaches wherein the feeding device includes the feeding surface including a spoon shaped area (concave holding portion 106, paragraph 54).
Regarding Claim 9, Braxton further teaches further comprising a cap removably attachable to the first connector, for closing the food container when disconnected from the feeding device (paragraph 94 and Fig. 9).
Regarding Claim 11, Braxton further teaches wherein: the food container is configured such that, when the second connector is attached to the first connector, application of pressure on the food storage portion expels the flowable food through the first connector and the second connector, further through the food channel in the feeding device, and onto the feeding surface of the feeding device (paragraph 84).
Regarding Claim 12, since Barnaba discloses a valve having an exterior flexible flap tapering forwards the first surface of the feeding surface, the combination is construed to form a food channel having a reed valve. Barnaba further teaches (1) when pressure is applied to the food storage portion, the reed valve opens and allows flowable food to pass through the reed valve to the feeding surface, and (2) when pressure is released from the food storage portion, the reed valve closes (see abstract).
Regarding Claim 13, Braxton does not specifically recite further comprising: multiple interchangeable feeding devices. However, Braxton discloses different embodiments of a removable feeding device, which includes a spoon with a rounded edge (Fig. 3a), or a spoon with a flat edge (Fig. 4a, paragraph 56-58). Certain dispensing mouth pieces are shaped to facilitate scooping (paragraph 56), or to facilitate entry into the mouth (paragraph 57), Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide interchangeable mouthpieces to facilitate different purposes.
Claim(s) 5, 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination as applied to Claim 1, further in view of Stanislawczyk et al. (US 2018/0168936 A1)
Regarding Claim 5, the combination is silent to wherein the first connector includes another one-way valve to impede flow of the flowable food through the first connector. Stanislawczyk is relied on to teach comprising a series of one-way valves to contain contaminated fluid thereby trapping the contaminated fluid within a containment chamber (see abstract). The two one-way valve is provided to prevent contaminated fluid mixing with uncontaminated fluid by closure of one of the plurality of one-way valve (paragraph 8).
Therefore, since both Braxton and Stanislawczyk are directed to a container for dispensing infant foodstuff, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide two one-way valve within the first connector such that a sealing area is formed therebetween, for the purpose of containing contaminated fluid and preventing the contaminated fluid to mix with the uncontaminated fluid. The one-way valve is construed to impede flow of the flowable material through the first connector when the valve is closed.
Regarding Claims 7 and 8, the combination does not specifically recite two additional one-way valves (total of three one-way valves); however, Stanislawczyk discloses “a plurality of one-way valves” and is not limited to two valves (see Claim 1). Also, since Stanislawczyk already discloses a series of two one-way valves, an additional one-way valve is seen merely as a duplication of part. The court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (see MPEP 2144.04.VI.B). Stanislawczyk is relied on to further teach a sealing area formed by two one-way valves within a connector (see basket 30 of Fig. 2A). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to comprise additional one-way valves to further reduce contaminated fluid to mix with uncontaminated fluid.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination as applied to Claim 5, further in view of Wilson (US 10,239,647).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination is silent to wherein the one-way valve comprises a silicon valve. Wilson is relied on to teach a squeezable container having a silicon one-way valve within the fitment which connects to an opening of the container (12 of Fig. 2) thereby allowing the dispensing of food contents without allowing air to return into the container (Col. 4, Ln. 1-13). The valve also prevents spilling of the contents when the container is resting on its side (Col. 3, ln. 23-34).
Since Braxton, Stanislawczyk, and Wilson are directed to squeezable containers for dispensing food, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a silicon one-way valve for the purpose of preventing air from entering the container, and to reduce spilling of the foodstuff.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination as applied to Claim 1, further in view of Schultz (US 2009/0227943 A1- cited in IDS filed 10/27/2023).
Regarding Claim 10, Braxton does not teach wherein the food container is a syringe. Schultz is relied on to teach a food container containing a food storage portion for containing a flowable food (see abstract) wherein the food container is a syringe (see 12 of Fig. 1) which delivers foodstuff onto a spoon portion of the feeding device (dispensing spoon, paragraph 34). The syringe allows the user to accurately measure an amount of the liquid being dispensed onto the spoon portion of the feeding device while minimizing spillage (paragraph 36).
Since both Braxton and Schultz are both directed to a food container configured to dispense food onto a spoon feed device, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the food container into a syringe to provide accurate measurement of the foodstuff while minimizing spillage.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 of copending Application No. 18/892478 in view of Barnaba et al. (WO 2019/202463 A1).
Copending Claims 1-2 recites:
An apparatus for feeding flowable food to a person, the apparatus comprising:
A feed device comprising a feeding surface
A food container configured to store the flowable food within a food storage portion, the food container comprising a first connector (end connector) on an open end of the food storage portion; and wherein the feeding device, has a second connector removably attachable to the first connector (attached to the second side).
The copending claims are silent to wherein the food channel has a flexible exterior surface flap integrally formed with the feeding device on an external surface of the feeding device extending continuously from the second connector and tapering towards an opening on the first surface of the feeding surface of the feeding device to form a one-way valve, such that the flexible exterior surface flap deflects from the first surface while maintaining a smooth contour of the feeding surface to allow the flowable food to pass through the food channel to the feeding surface, when pressure is applied to the food storage portion. Barnaba is relied on to teach a feeding device that comprises a feeding surface (functional portion 12, see Fig. 1) and a flexible exterior flap (lifting flap 30, paragraph 34 and Fig. 1) integrally formed with the feeding device extending continuously and tapering towards an opening on the first surface of the feeding surface to form a one-way valve (see abstract), such that the flexible exterior surface flap deflects from the first surface while maintaining a smooth contour of the feeding surface to allow flowable food to pass through the food channel to the feed surface when pressure is applied to the food storage portion (open the cavity 20 when it is urged and to close the cavity 20 when it is not urged, see abstract and Figure 3). Since Barnaba is directed to dispensing food material from a food container to a feeding surface, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a one-way valve having similar construction for the purpose of maintaining sanitation. The modification would have resulted in the one-way valve having a flexible exterior surface flap extending from the connector and towards the feeding surface of the feeding device.
Claims 2-4, 9, 11 and 13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the combination as applied to copending Claim 2, further in view of Braxton et al. (US 2016/0075483 A1 – cited in IDS filed 10/27/2023)
Regarding Claims 2-3, the copending claims do not recite the limitations of Claims 2-3. Braxton teaches wherein the food container is configured such that, when the second connector is attached to the first connector, application of compressive pressure on the exterior surface of the food storage portion expels the flowable food through the first connector and the second connector onto the feeding surface of the feeding device (paragraph 53-54). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to be capable of applying compressing pressure for the purpose of expelling the flowable food through the feeding device.
Regarding Claim 4, the copending claims do not recite the limitations of Claim 4. Braxton further teaches wherein the feeding device includes the feeding surface including a spoon shaped area (concave holding portion 106, paragraph 54). Since both are directed to feed devices for administering food, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a spoon shaped area to facilitate entry into the mouth (paragraph 57).
Regarding Claim 9, the copending claims do not recite the limitations of Claim 9. Braxton further teaches further comprising a cap removably attachable to the first connector, for closing the food container when disconnected from the feeding device (paragraph 94 and Fig. 9). It would have been obvious to comprise a cap to close the container when not in use.
Regarding Claim 11, the copending claims do not recite the limitations of Claim 11. Braxton further teaches wherein: the feeding device includes a food channel (see Figs. 6a and 6b); and the food container is configured such that, when the second connector is attached to the first connector, application of pressure on the food storage portion expels the flowable food through the first connector and the second connector, further through the food channel in the feeding device, and onto the feeding surface of the feeding device (paragraph 84). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ similar mechanisms for the purpose of expelling the flowable food through the feeding device.
Regarding Claim 12, since Stanislawczyk discloses a valve having an exterior flexible flap tapering forwards the first surface of the feeding surface, the combination is construed to form a food channel having a reed valve. Stanislawczyk further teaches (1) when pressure is applied to the food storage portion, the reed valve opens and allows flowable food to pass through the reed valve to the feeding surface, and (2) when pressure is released from the food storage portion, the reed valve closes (paragraph 20).
Regarding Claim 13, the copending claims do not recite further comprising: multiple interchangeable feeding devices. Braxton discloses different embodiments of a removable feeding device, which includes a spoon with a rounded edge (Fig. 3a), or a spoon with a flat edge (Fig. 4a, paragraph 56-58). Certain dispensing mouth pieces are shaped to facilitate scooping (paragraph 56), or to facilitate entry into the mouth (paragraph 57), Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide interchangeable mouthpieces to facilitate different purposes.
Claims 5, 7-8 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the combination as applied to copending Claim 2, further in view of Stanislawczyk et al. (US 2018/0168936 A1)
Regarding Claim 5, the copending claim is silent to wherein the first connector includes another one-way valve to impede flow of the flowable food through the first connector. Stanislawczyk further teaches comprising a series of one-way valves to contain contaminated fluid thereby trapping the contaminated fluid within a containment chamber (see abstract). The two one-way valve prevents contaminated fluid to mix with uncontaminated fluid by closure of one of the plurality of one-way valve (paragraph 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide two one-way valves within the first connector such that a sealing area is formed therebetween, for the purpose of containing contaminated fluid and preventing the contaminated fluid to mix with the uncontaminated fluid. The one-way valve is construed to impede flow of the flowable material through the first connector when the valve is closed.
Regarding Claim 7-8, the copending claims do not recite two additional one-way valves (total of three one-way valves); however, Stanislawczyk discloses “a plurality of one-way valves” and is not limited to two valves (see Claim 1). Also, since Stanislawczyk already discloses a series of two one-way valves, an additional one-way valve is seen merely as a duplication of part. The court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (see MPEP 2144.04.VI.B). Stanislawczyk is relied on to further teach a sealing area formed by two one-way valves within a connector (see basket 30 of Fig. 2A). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to comprise additional one-way valves to further reduce contaminated fluid to mix with uncontaminated fluid.
Claim 6 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the combination as applied to Claim 5, further in view of Wilson (US 10,239,647).
Regarding Claim 6, the copending claims are silent to comprising a silicon valve. Wilson is relied on to teach a squeezable container having a silicon one-way valve within the fitment which connects to an opening of the container (12 of Fig. 2) thereby allowing the dispensing of food contents without allowing air to return into the container (Col. 4, Ln. 1-13). The valve also prevents spilling of the contents when the container is resting on its side (Col. 3, ln. 23-34).
Since Noble and Wilson are directed to squeezable containers for dispensing food, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a silicon one-way valve for the purpose of preventing air from entering the container, and to reduce spilling of the foodstuff.
Claim 10 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of copending Application No. 18/892478 in view of Schultz (US 2009/0227943 A1- cited in IDS filed 10/27/2023).
Regarding Claim 10, Copending claims do not teach wherein the food container is a syringe. Schultz is relied on to teach a food container containing a food storage portion for containing a flowable food (see abstract) wherein the food container is a syringe (see 12 of Fig. 1) which delivers foodstuff onto a spoon portion of the feeding device (dispensing spoon, paragraph 34). The syringe allows the user to accurately measure an amount of the liquid being dispensed onto the spoon portion of the feeding device while minimizing spillage (paragraph 36).
Since Schultz is also directed to a food container configured to dispense food onto a spoon feed device, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the food container into a syringe to provide accurate measurement of the foodstuff while minimizing spillage.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in the response filed 29 Dec 2025 has been considered, but is rendered moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
That is, all arguments directed at the combination of Barnaba and Stanislawczyk are rendered moot because Stanislawczyk is no longer relied on to teach the claimed exterior surface flap or the one-way valve structure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THANH H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-0346. The examiner can normally be reached 10am-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, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at 571-270-3475. 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.
/T.H.N/Examiner, Art Unit 1792
/VIREN A THAKUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights