DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Due to applicant’s amendment filed on September 24, 2025, the objections to the drawings, specification and the 112(b) rejections in the previous office action (dated 03/24/2025) are hereby withdrawn.
The status of the claim(s) is as follows:
Claims 1-2 and 5-9 have been amended,
Claims 3 and 10-14 were previously presented,
Claim 4 has been cancelled.
Therefore, claims 1-3 and 5-14 are currently pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 5-9 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 5-9, ln. 1, the preamble of each claim reads “The teat of claim 14…” which should to be change to “The [[teat]] feeding bottle of claim 14…” to establish the proper antecedent basis and for consistency purposes with the remainder(s) of the claim(s).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-3 and 5-14 is/are 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In claim 1, ln. 8-9, the phrase, “…wherein the first connecting portion has a radius of curvature less than the radius of curvature of at least one end portion…” IS NOT supported by the original disclosure (dated 06/06/2023); emphasis added.
As for claims 2-3 and 5-14, due to their dependencies form claim 1 they too have these deficiencies.
Examiner's note: The forgoing analysis may not be exhaustive. Applicant should carefully proofread all claims and make all necessary corrections.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3 and 5-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In claim 1, ln. 8-13, the phrase in each instance, “…the first connecting portion…” lacks antecedent basis and renders the claim to be vague and indefinite because the applicant established “a connecting portion” (claim 1, ln. 5) NOT “a first connecting portion”; emphasis added. Therefore, it is unclear if “the first connecting portion” AND “a connecting portion” (of ln. 5) are the same structure(s) OR two different structure(s) in these occurrences. Further clarification is required.
In claim 1, ln. 8-9, the phrase, “…wherein the first connecting portion has a radius of curvature less than the radius of curvature of at least one end portion…” renders the claim to be vague and indefinite because if the first connecting portion is a straight line or portion, then the radius of curvature of straight line or portion is infinity, since a straight line or portion has NO curvature. Therefore, the radius of curvature would be higher than any radius of curvature of at least one end portion – which is the COMPLETE opposite of what is being claimed above; emphasis added. With that in mind, it is unclear as to which structural limitation(s) or relationship(s) is being encompassed with such language. Further clarification is required.
In claim 1, ln. 11-14, the phrase, “…the first connecting portion having a length equal at least to said first minimum radius of curvature and the first connecting portion having a second minimum radius of curvature at least 2 times the first minimum radius of curvature…” renders the claim to be vague and indefinite because it is unclear as to what structural limitations or relationships in being encompassed with such language. In other words, it is unclear as to how a first connecting portion (i.e. a straight line or portion) can have a radius of curvature (specifically a second minimum radius of curvature), when a straight line or portion has NO curvature at all. Further clarification is required.
In claim 2, ln. 1, the phrase, “…each curved path…” renders the claim to be vague and indefinite because it is unclear as to which aforementioned structure(s) is being encompassed with such language. Further clarification is required.
In claim 3, ln. 1, the phrase, “…each curved path…” renders the claim to be vague and indefinite because it is unclear as to which aforementioned structure(s) is being encompassed with such language. Further clarification is required.
In claim 5, ln. 1, the phrase, “…the connecting portion…” lacks antecedent basis and renders the claim to be vague and indefinite because the applicant HAS NOT established “a connecting portion” per se in claim 14 (which claim 5 depends from). Therefore, it is unclear as to which aforementioned structure(s) is being encompassed with such language. Further clarification is required.
In claims 6 and 8, the phrase in each claim, “…the slit arrangement…” lacks antecedent basis and renders the claim to be vague and indefinite because the applicant HAS NOT established “a slit arrangement” per se in claim 14 (which claims 6 and 8 depend from). Therefore, it is unclear as to which aforementioned structure(s) is being encompassed with such language. Further clarification is required.
In claims 6,7 and 9, the phrase in each instance, “…the first connecting portion…” lacks antecedent basis and renders the claim to be vague and indefinite because the applicant HAS NOT established “a first connecting portion” per se in claim 14 (which claims 6, 7 and 9 depend from). Therefore, it is unclear as to which aforementioned structure(s) is being encompassed with such language. Further clarification is required.
In claim 11, ln. 1-2, the phrase, “…the radius of curvature of the curved path…” lacks antecedent basis and renders the claim to be vague and indefinite because the applicant HAS NOT established “the curved path having a radius of curvature” RATHER applicant established “a curved path having a first minimum radius of curvature” (claim 1, ln. 6-7; which claim 11 depends from). Therefore, it is unclear as to which aforementioned structure(s) is being encompassed with such language. Further clarification is required.
As for claims 2-3 and 5-14, due to their dependencies form claim 1 they too have these deficiencies.
Examiner's note: The forgoing analysis may not be exhaustive. Applicant should carefully proofread all claims and make all necessary corrections.
Furthermore, where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. See MPEP §2173.06
Conclusion
Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIJESH V. PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1878. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 6:00 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, Orlando E. Avilés can be reached on 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.
/B. V. P./
Examiner, Art Unit 3736
/ORLANDO E AVILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3736