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 .
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 at least one thread extending radially inward beyond the liner inner wall must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Liner inner wall)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Thread)]
PNG
media_image1.png
491
772
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 § 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) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sheu (US 5758787).
Regarding Claim 10
Sheu teaches a bottle liner (below - Fig. 3), comprising: a wall (3 & 1) defining an open end and a closed end opposite the open end, the wall including a liner inner wall defining a storage volume accessed via the open end; wherein the wall has an open end thickness at the open end; wherein the wall has a closed end thickness at the closed end; wherein at least one thread (32) extending inwardly from the liner inner wall is configured between the open end and the closed end; and wherein the open end thickness is greater than the closed end thickness, as can be seen in Fig. 3 below (Col. 3, Ln. 13-25).
PNG
media_image2.png
670
374
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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) 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sheu as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Foley et al. (US 6910594) (hereinafter Foley).
Regarding Claim 13
Sheu teaches all the limitations of claim 10 as shown above. Sheu does not teach the bottle liner comprises a molded stretchable elastomer.
Foley teaches a bottle liner (below – Fig. 1) (12), comprising: a wall defining an open end (18) and a closed end (16) opposite the open end, the wall including a liner inner wall defining a storage volume accessed via the open end; wherein the wall has an open end thickness at the open end; wherein the wall has a closed end thickness at the closed end; wherein the open end thickness is greater than the closed end thickness; and the bottle liner comprises a molded stretchable elastomer, as can be seen in the figures above (Col. 3, Ln. 20-63).
PNG
media_image3.png
623
412
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Sheu and Foley are analogous inventions in the field of bottles having liners. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the material of the liner of Sheu with the teachings of the molded stretchable elastomer of Foley in order to provide a liner that is rigid enough to support the weight of milk within liner, but also flexible enough to collapse under atmospheric pressure when used as part of a nursing device (Col. 3, Ln. 33-36).
Regarding Claims 14 and 15
Sheu teaches all the limitations of claim 10 as shown above. Sheu does not teach the bottle liner comprising a thermochromic material, specifically wherein the thermochromic material has a first aesthetic corresponding to a first temperature state; wherein the thermochromic material has a second aesthetic corresponding to a second temperature state; wherein the first aesthetic is different from the second aesthetic; and wherein the first temperature state is different from the second temperature state.
Foley teaches a bottle liner (12), comprising: a wall defining an open end (18) and a closed end (16) opposite the open end, the wall including a liner inner wall defining a storage volume accessed via the open end; wherein the wall has an open end thickness at the open end; wherein the wall has a closed end thickness at the closed end; wherein the open end thickness is greater than the closed end thickness, and the bottle liner further comprising a thermochromic material, wherein the thermochromic material has a first aesthetic corresponding to a first temperature state; wherein the thermochromic material has a second aesthetic corresponding to a second temperature state; wherein the first aesthetic is different from the second aesthetic; and wherein the first temperature state is different from the second temperature state (Col. 3, Ln. 20-63).
Sheu and Foley are analogous inventions in the field of bottles having liners. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the material of the liner of Sheu with the teachings of the thermochromic material of Foley in order to provide a liner that allows the user to see the change in temperature of the liquid within the liner (Col. 3, Ln. 45-48).
Claim(s) 16-18, 20, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sheu (US 5758787) in view of Foley et al. (US 6910594) (hereinafter Foley).
Regarding Claim 16
Sheu teaches a bottle liner (Fig. 3), comprising: a wall (3&1) defining an open end and a closed end opposite the open end, the wall including a liner inner wall defining a storage volume accessed via the open end, the liner inner wall including at least one thread (32) extending inwardly between the open end and the closed end (Col. 3, Ln. 13-25).
Sheu does not teach the bottle liner comprises a molded stretchable elastomer.
Foley teaches a bottle liner, comprising: a wall (12) defining an open end (18) and a closed end (16) opposite the open end, the wall including a liner inner wall defining a storage volume accessed via the open end; wherein the bottle liner comprises a molded stretchable elastomer (Col. 3, Ln. 20-63).
Sheu and Foley are analogous inventions in the field of bottles having liners. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the material of the liner of Sheu with the teachings of the molded stretchable elastomer of Foley in order to provide a liner that is rigid enough to support the weight of milk within liner, but also flexible enough to collapse under atmospheric pressure when used as part of a nursing device (Col. 3, Ln. 33-36).
Regarding Claim 17 & 18
Sheu in view of Foley (hereinafter “modified Sheu”) teaches all the limitations of claim 16 as stated above. Foley further teaches the bottle liner further comprising a thermochromic material, wherein the thermochromic material has a first aesthetic corresponding to a first temperature state; wherein the thermochromic material has a second aesthetic corresponding to a second temperature state; wherein the first aesthetic is different from the second aesthetic; and wherein the first temperature state is different from the second temperature state (Col. 3, Ln. 45-48).
Regarding Claim 20
Modified Sheu teaches all the limitations of claim 16 as stated above. Sheu further teaches the wall has an open end thickness (shown at 3) at the open end; wherein the wall has a closed end thickness (shown at 1) at the closed end; wherein the open end thickness is greater than the closed end thickness, as can be seen above.
Regarding Claim 21
Modified Sheu teaches all the limitations of claim 16 as stated above. Sheu further teaches the at least one thread extends radially inward beyond the liner inner wall, inasmuch as Applicant shows.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 3-9 are allowed.
Claims 11, 12, and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Closest prior art (Sheu – cited above) teaches a majority of the Applicant’s claimed invention. However, the closest prior art does not teach: the lip extending radially outward beyond a liner outer wall; and a ledge extending radially inward beyond the liner inner wall (claims 1, 11, and 19).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/3/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Sheu does not teach a bottle liner wherein the open end thickness is greater than the closed end thickness. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As can be seen in the rejection above, the interpretation of the liner of Sheu includes both elements (3 and 1). As such, Sheu clearly teaches a bottle liner wherein the open end thickness is greater than the closed end thickness.
Conclusion
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 JENNIFER CASTRIOTTA whose telephone number is (571)270-5279. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 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, Nathan Jenness can be reached at (571) 270-5055. 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.
/JENNIFER CASTRIOTTA/Examiner, Art Unit 3733
/NATHAN J JENNESS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3733
23 March 2026