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 .
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.
Claims 12, 13, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lidmar (US 20150075434 A).
Regarding claim 12, Lidmar discloses an elastic teat cup liner (Fig. 1, ¶ 0028, lines 1-5, “FIG. 1 discloses a teatcup attached to a teat T of an udder U of an animal to be milked according to a first embodiment. The teatcup comprises a cartridge 1 and a connector 2. The teatcup may also comprise a lip member 3, as a separate or integrated part of a teatcup liner,” ¶ 0034, lines 1 and 2, “The barrel portion 7c of the barrel 7 is made of a first material having a relatively high elasticity”), comprising:
a hose region (milk conduit 4; Fig. 1),
a top region adjoining the hose region, said top region configured for attachment to a teat cup sleeve and is provided with a teat insertion opening (Fig. 1 shows annular base 60 is a top region with a teat insertion opening, and adjoins hose 4 through link with barrel 7 by way of permanent joint 12);
an annular region with the teat insertion opening and a teat contact surface having an undulating structure along a circumference of the teat insertion opening with an underside facing said hose region and an upper side facing away from said hose region (lip 61; Figs. 2 and 4), wherein said hose region, the top region and the annular region including the undulating structure are formed of a single piece of material (Figs. 2 and 4 show material of lip 61 and base 60 is the same), and a wave crest of the undulating structure includes a wave crest section on the upper side in a circumferential direction of the teat insertion opening and a wave trough of the undulating structure includes a wave trough section on the underside in the circumferential direction (Fig. 4 shows peak portion 63 and valley portion 64, which are on an upper side and underside and are respectively arranged farther from and closer to milk conduit 4 below),
and wherein the undulating structure has regions of different stiffness and deformation behaviour (Fig. 4 shows the undulating structure has a greater thickness at annular end surface 65 than tip of lip 61, resulting in greater stiffness; ¶ 0009, “Thanks to the oscillations, or wave-shape, the stretching and the deformation of the lip, especially in the proximity of the lip edge, is significantly reduced in comparison with a lip without oscillations during use of the lip member. The oscillations therefore contribute to a longer lifetime of the lip member since the stresses during use will be less. The sloping of the lip towards the second end also contributes to less deformation and less stretching of the lip, especially in the proximity of the lip edge. Since the lip is turned already in advance in the introductory direction for the teat, no great: deformation is needed, but only a straightening of the oscillations and a slight bending downwardly and outwardly. After milking when the udder is less tense, the teat may he easily and quickly removed from the teatcup liner through the opening of the lip member”),
whereby the undulating structure is capable of controlled detachment so that a gas exchange takes place between an interior of the elastic teat cup liner and a surrounding atmosphere contributing to a reduction in possible negative pressure peaks during milking (Figs 1-6; undulating structure is configured to allow for controlled detachment).
Lidmar, however, fails to specifically disclose wherein an extension of the wave trough section in the circumferential direction as a function of increasing distance from the teat insertion opening is such that there is a radial distance from the teat insertion opening at which a radius of curvature of the wave crests becomes greater than a radius of curvature of the wave troughs. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the earliest effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Lidmar such that an extension of the wave trough section in the circumferential direction as a function of increasing distance from the teat insertion opening is such that there is a radial distance from the teat insertion opening at which a radius of curvature of the wave crests becomes greater than a radius of curvature of the wave troughs in order to further control the deformation pattern, further aiding in the operation of the device. Additionally, there is no invention in merely changing the shape or form of an article without changing its function except in a design patent. Eskimo Pie Corp. v. Levous et al., 3 USPQ 23.
Regarding claim 13, Lidmar discloses the device of claim 12, however, Lidmar fails to specifically disclose wherein a wave trough extension on the underside in the circumferential direction at the teat insertion opening is greater than a corresponding wave crest extension on the upper side in the circumferential direction of the wave crest. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the earliest effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Lidmar such that a wave trough extension on the underside in the circumferential direction at the teat insertion opening is greater than a corresponding wave crest extension on the upper side in the circumferential direction of the wave crest in order to further control the deformation pattern, further aiding in the operation of the device. Additionally, such a modification 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. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Further, in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Regarding claim 16, Lidmar discloses the device of claim 12, however, Lidmar fails to specifically disclose wherein: the wave troughs have a width in the circumferential direction that decreases with increasing radial distance from the teat insertion opening. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the earliest effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Lidmar such that the wave troughs have a width in the circumferential direction that decreases with increasing radial distance from the teat insertion opening in order to further control the deformation pattern, further aiding in the operation of the device. Additionally, there is no invention in merely changing the shape or form of an article without changing its function except in a design patent. Eskimo Pie Corp. v. Levous et al., 3 USPQ 23.
Regarding claim 17, Lidmar discloses the device of claim 12, however, Lidmar fails to specifically disclose wherein: the wave troughs have a width in the circumferential direction that remains the same with increasing radial distance from the teat insertion opening. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the earliest effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Lidmar such that the wave troughs have a width in the circumferential direction that remains the same with increasing radial distance from the teat insertion opening in order to further control the deformation pattern, further aiding in the operation of the device. Additionally, there is no invention in merely changing the shape or form of an article without changing its function except in a design patent. Eskimo Pie Corp. v. Levous et al., 3 USPQ 23.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lidmar (US 20150075434 A) in view of Grüter et al. (US 20180228117 A1), hereinafter Grüter.
Regarding claim 1, Lidmar discloses an elastic teat cup liner for holding a teat (Fig. 1, ¶ 0028, lines 1-5; ¶ 0034, lines 1 and 2), comprising
a hose region (milk conduit 4; Fig. 1),
a top region adjoining in a longitudinal direction of the hose region, which is configured for attachment to a teat cup sleeve and is provided with a teat insertion opening (Fig. 1 shows annular base 60 is a top region with a teat insertion opening, and is arranged longitudinally to hose 4 through link with barrel 7 by way of permanent joint 12), and
an annular region delimiting the teat insertion opening and acting as a teat contact surface in an operating position and having an undulating structure along a circumference of the teat insertion opening with an underside facing the hose region and an upper side facing away from the hose region (lip 61; Figs. 2 and 4), wherein the hose region, the top region and the annular region including the undulating structure are formed in the form of a single piece of material (Figs. 2 and 4 show material of lip 61 and base 60 is the same), and a wave crest of the undulating structure includes a wave crest section in a circumferential direction of the teat insertion opening, at which an underside of the wave crest section has a maximum distance from the hose region, and a wave trough of the undulating structure includes a wave trough section, at which the an underside of the wave trough section has a minimum distance from the hose region which is different from the maximum distance (Fig. 4 shows peak portion 63 and valley portion 64, which are respectively arranged farther from and closer to milk conduit 4 below), and
Lidmar, however, fails to specifically disclose the wave crest section and the wave trough section have substantially different wall thicknesses, and wherein an extension of the wave troughs in the circumferential direction as a function of remains the same with increasing distance from the teat insertion opening is such that there is a radial distance from the teat insertion opening, at which an extension of the wave crests in the circumferential direction is greater than an extension of the wave troughs in the circumferential direction.
Grüter is in the field of elastic teat cups and teaches wherein the wave crest section and the wave trough section have substantially different wall thicknesses (Fig. 3,g shows undulatory form has second indentations 13 which are thicker than first indentations 10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of milking devices before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Lidmar such that the wave crest section and the wave trough section have substantially different wall thicknesses, as taught by the undulatory form of Grüter. The undulations with crests and troughs having different thicknesses would increase the flexibility and elasticity of certain portions of the surface, which would further control the pattern of deformation during use. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the earliest effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Lidmar in view of Grüter such that an extension of the wave troughs in the circumferential direction as a function of remains the same with increasing distance from the teat insertion opening is such that there is a radial distance from the teat insertion opening, at which an extension of the wave crests in the circumferential direction is greater than an extension of the wave troughs in the circumferential direction in order to further control the deformation pattern, further aiding in the operation of the device. Additionally, there is no invention in merely changing the shape or form of an article without changing its function except in a design patent. Eskimo Pie Corp. v. Levous et al., 3 USPQ 23.
Regarding claim 2, Lidmar in view of Grüter discloses the device of claim 1, however, the modified reference fails to specifically disclose wherein a radial extension of the undulating structure in the annular region starting from an edge of the teat insertion opening is numerically greater than a radius of the teat insertion opening. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the earliest effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Lidmar in view of Grüter such that a radial extension of the undulating structure in the annular region starting from an edge of the teat insertion opening is numerically greater than a radius of the teat insertion opening in order to increase the size of the deformable area, further aiding in the operation of the device. Additionally, such a modification 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. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Further, in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Regarding claim 3, Lidmar in view of Grüter discloses the device of claim 1, and furthermore, the modified reference teaches wherein the wave crest section has a greater wall thickness than the wave trough section (Grüter; Fig. 3,g).
Regarding claim 4, Lidmar in view of Grüter discloses the device of claim 1, however, the modified reference fails to specifically disclose wherein at an edge of the teat insertion opening an extension length of the wave troughs is greater than an extension length of the wave crests. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the earliest effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Lidmar in view of Grüter such that at an edge of the teat insertion opening an extension length of the wave troughs is greater than an extension length of the wave crests in order to further control the pattern of deformation during use. Additionally, such a modification 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. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Further, in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Regarding claim 6, Lidmar in view of Grüter discloses the device of claim 1.
Lidmar discloses wherein at least three wave troughs are provided in the undulating structure (Figs. 2, 4, and 5).
Regarding claim 7, Lidmar in view of Grüter discloses the device of claim 6.
Lidmar discloses wherein six or more wave troughs are provided (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 8, Lidmar in view of Grüter discloses the device of claim 1.
Lidmar discloses wherein the annular region is inclined from an edge of the top region towards the teat insertion opening in a direction of the hose region (Fig. 4 shows inclination of annular region towards opening).
Regarding claim 9, Lidmar in view of Grüter discloses the device of claim 1.
Lidmar discloses wherein the teat insertion opening is dimensioned so as to enable insertion of a teat of a dairy animal (teat T; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 10, Lidmar in view of Grüter discloses the device of claim 1.
Lidmar discloses wherein the teat insertion opening is dimensioned so as to enable insertion of a teat of a sheep or a goat (Fig. 1 shows opening is configured to enable insertion of a teat of a sheep or goat).
Regarding claim 11, Lidmar in view of Grüter discloses the device of claim 1.
Lidmar discloses wherein the teat insertion opening is dimensioned so as to enable insertion of a teat of a cow or a buffalo (Fig. 1 shows opening is configured to enable insertion of a teat of a cow or buffalo).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the argument on pages 16 and 17 that “Even if the Examiner attempts to incorporate any teaching of Gruter, it is not seen how this could result in obviousness of the present invention for the following reasons. Gruter shows a corrugated structure, but unlike the present invention, it has an orientation rotated by 90°, such that the radial extent of the wave structure of the present invention corresponds in Gruter to a structure extending along the longitudinal axis of the teat rubber, thereby imparting greater elasticity to the head region, without unnecessarily increasing the diameter of the teat rubber, as explicitly disclosed and discussed in Gruter. The Examiner has failed to acknowledge the fundamentally different orientation of the geometry of the arrangement in Gruter and has consistently argued that transferring certain features of the Gruter geometry into the ‘Lidmar’ structure would be obvious and within the ordinary skill of a person in the art, without, however, taking into account that neither motivation nor advantages in this regard can be found in the disclosure and teachings of Gruter and Lidmar. In the present invention, as claimed, the structure and geometry of the wave crests and wave troughs in the present invention, namely, the circumferential extent of the wave crests increasing outwardly, ultimately resulting in a greater circumferential extent than the circumferential extent of the wave troughs. This makes possible and leads to an increased contact area as the depth of the teat penetrates into the insertion opening increases. Such a characteristic or structure would not result from the geometry or structure disclosed in Gruter, since in Gruter the contact surface is independent of the direction in the longitudinal direction of the teat cup. Even if the geometry or structure disclosed in Gruter were ‘rotated’ by 90°, the configuration and structure of the present invention would not result, since the increase in circumferential extent with increasing radial distance would not occur or result. Hence, even for a hypothetical, there is some possible combination of Lidmar and Gruter the structure of the teat rubber claimed in the present invention would not be obtained without something more than the disclosures and teachings of Lidmar and Gruter,” the Examiner maintains that Lidmar is relied upon to teach the circumferential structure of the undulatory forms, not Grüter, and additionally recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the benefit of providing the undulations with crests and troughs having different thicknesses is found in Grüter, as undulations with crests and troughs having different thicknesses is disclosed to increase the flexibility and elasticity of certain portions of the surface, which would further control the pattern of deformation during use (¶ 0016). Since Lidmar already discloses the claimed undulating structure of a top region and annular region, and since Grüter teaches wave crest sections and wave trough sections having different wall thicknesses, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the device of Lidmar with the structure of Grüter. Furthermore, the lateral deformation structure of Grüter as opposed to the circumferential crest and trough structure of Lidmar, would not have prevented one of ordinary skill in the art from considering Grüter, as both references contain a wave and trough structure, where the only substantial geometrical difference is the change in orientation of the wave and trough structure. As demonstrated above, the mere orientation of the wave and trough structure would not have prevented one of ordinary skill in the art from considering Grüter and Lidmar in combination together. The function of Lidmar would remain substantially unchanged after incorporating the variable thickness of Grüter, as the device of Lidmar would still achieve suction around the teat and be able to operate under the same pulsation conditions.
The remainder of Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure.
Jun et al., US 7908999 B2, discusses a teat rubber.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. 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 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 SPENCER THOMAS CALLAWAY whose telephone number is (571)272-3512. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm.
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, Joshua Huson can be reached on 571-270-5301. 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.T.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA D HUSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights