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 as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 212 and 239. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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 § 112
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 21-31 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 21 has been amended to state “the lower end of the outer surface of the grasping body is substantially larger than the upstanding spout wall”. This is unclear because it does not state how the lower end is “substantially larger”. Does the Applicant mean in height? Width? Thickness? Etc. The claim has been examined below as best the Examiner can understand. Further clarification and correction are required.
Claim 29 references “the spout having a base flange”. Claim 21, which claim 29 depends from already claims “the spout having a base flange”. It is unclear if claim 29 is intending to claim the same base flange as claim 21 or a different base flange. For the purposes of further consideration, claim 29 is being interpreted as stating “The pouch assembly of claim 21 wherein the pouch body is formed from a plurality of panels coupled together through at least one seal, with the being coupled to the plurality of panels about the at least one seal.” Further clarification and/or correction are required.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 21 has been amended to include all the limitations of claim 30, thus making claim 30 redundant. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 21-23 and 25-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andrey et al. (US 2022/0062104) (hereinafter Andrey) and Fillmore (US 4778071).
Regarding Claims 21 and 30
Andrey teaches a pouch assembly (below – Fig. 11 and 15) comprising: a pouch (131) with a pouch body being flexible and defining a volume and a spout (141+100) providing fluid communication with the volume, the spout having a base flange (shown below) with an upstanding spout body (shown at 13 – Fig. 15) extending therefrom and being within the footprint of the base flange; a dispensing cap (10) coupled to the spout in fluid tight engagement, the dispensing cap comprising: a grasping body (11) having an outer surface, and the grasping body having a lower end which is spaced apart from the pouch body, with the grasping body being outwardly spaced apart from the upstanding spout body (via the wall thickness) body of the pouch so as to have at least a portion extending beyond the base flange of the spout, inasmuch as Applicant shows; a spout engaging bore (shown at 21) structurally configured sealingly to engage the upstanding spout body; a spout engaging end (42) having an outlet opening that is in fluid communication with the spout, and in turn, the volume, the spout engaging end having an outer surface (shown below) on its upper side that extends perpendicular (horizontal) to the spout engaging bore (vertical), and an outer rim defined along a perimeter of the outer surface, the spout engaging end being configured such that at least a portion of the lower end of the outer surface of the grasping body extends beyond the footprint of the base flange, such that the lower end of the outer surface of the grasping body is substantially larger than the upstanding spout wall, inasmuch as Applicant shows; and a dispensing coupling (12) extending from the spout engaging end, with the dispensing coupling being in fluid communication with the outlet opening, the dispensing coupling comprising an ENFit® coupling; a cover (70) positionable to overlie the dispensing coupling comprising: a bore cover extending from an inner surface of the cover, structurally configured to engage a terminal end of the dispensing coupling (Paragraphs [0034]-[0038]).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Base flange)]
PNG
media_image1.png
672
454
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
440
306
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
221
447
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Andrey does not teach the dispensing cover further comprising: a cap outer rim engaging the outer rim of the spout engaging end; and a live hinge assembly having: a pair of spaced apart live hinge components, each having a first end coupled to the outer surface of the grasping body proximate the outer rim of the spout engaging end, and a second end coupled to the dispensing cover proximate the cap outer rim; and a limiting member positioned between each of the live hinge components, the limiting member having a first end coupled to the outer surface of the grasping body proximate the outer rim of the spout engaging end, and a second end coupled to the dispensing cover, whereupon a user can grasp the outer surface of the grasping body with a portion of a hand while being able to manipulate the dispensing cover between a first closed orientation and a second open orientation with the same hand which remains spaced apart from the pouch body.
Fillmore teaches a container assembly (Fig. 1 and 3-5) comprising: a container with a container body defining a volume and a spout (not shown) providing fluid communication with the volume; a dispensing cap (10) coupled to the spout in fluid tight engagement, the dispensing cap comprising: a grasping body (11) having an outer surface (26), and the grasping body having a lower end which is spaced apart from the container body; a spout engaging bore (shown at 20) structurally configured to sealingly engage the spout; a spout engaging end (14) having an outlet opening that is in fluid communication with the spout, and in turn, the volume, the spout engaging end having an outer surface on its upper side that extends perpendicular to (horizontal) the spout engaging bore (vertical), and an outer rim (16) defined along a perimeter of the outer surface; and a dispensing coupling (17) extending from the spout engaging end, with the dispensing coupling being in fluid communication with the outlet opening; a dispensing cover (12) positionable to overlie the dispensing coupling, the dispensing cover further comprising: a cap outer rim (23) engaging the outer rim of the spout engaging end (Fig. 5); a bore cover (24) extending from an inner surface of the dispensing cover, structurally configured to engage a terminal end of the dispensing coupling; and a live hinge assembly having: a pair of spaced apart live hinge components (30), each having a first end coupled to the outer surface of the grasping body proximate the outer rim of the spout engaging end, and a second end coupled to the dispensing cover proximate the cap outer rim; and a limiting member (31) positioned between each of the live hinge components, the limiting member having a first end coupled to the outer surface of the grasping body proximate the outer rim of the spout engaging end, and a second end coupled to the dispensing cover, whereupon a user can grasp the outer surface of the grasping body with a portion of a hand while being able to manipulate the dispensing cover between a first closed orientation and a second open orientation with the same hand which remains spaced apart from the container body (Col. 2, Ln. 20 – Col. 3, Ln. 38).
PNG
media_image4.png
552
372
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
528
545
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Andrey and Fillmore are analogous inventions in the field of dispensing caps having dispensing couplings and covers. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the cap of Andrey with the teachings of the cap of Fillmore (particularly the dispensing cover) in order to provide a cover that is retained on the cap and also allows the user to use with one finger (Col. 2, Ln. 53-56).
Regarding Claim 22
Andrey in view of Fillmore (hereinafter “modified Andrey”) teaches all the limitations of claim 21 as stated above. Fillmore further teaches an outer flange (16) extending from the spout engaging end (14), and the dispensing cover (12) having the cap outer rim (23), wherein the outer flange and the outer rim interface in a closed configuration, as can be seen in Fig. 5 above.
Regarding Claim 23
Modified Andrey teaches all the limitations of claim 21 as stated above. Fillmore further teaches a finger (27) extending from the dispensing cover (12) opposite the live hinge assembly (31/30), the finger facilitating movement of the dispensing cover about the live hinge-configuration.
Regarding Claim 25
Modified Andrey teaches all the limitations of claim 21 as stated above. Andrey further teaches the pouch (131) is more than capable of including human breast milk.
Regarding Claim 26
Modified Andrey teaches all the limitations of claim 21 as stated above. Fillmore further teaches an outward flange (16) extends about the entirety of the perimeter of the outer surface of the spout engaging end (14).
Regarding Claim 27
Modified Andrey teaches all the limitations of claim 26 as stated above. Andrey further teaches the entirety of the outer surface of the spout engaging end (42) within a perimeter comprises a planar configuration surrounding the dispensing coupling (12) which is centrally located.
Regarding Claim 28
Modified Andrey teaches all the limitations of claim 21 as stated above. Andrey further teaches the dispensing cap (10) is threadedly (21/142) engaged to the spout (141+100) of the pouch.
Regarding Claim 29
Modified Andrey teaches all the limitations of claim 21 as stated above. Andrey further teaches the pouch body (131) is formed from a plurality of panels coupled together through at least one seal (shown below in an expanded view of Fig. 11), with the spout having a base flange coupled to the plurality of panels about the at least one seal.
[AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image6.png
271
330
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 31
Modified Andrey teaches all the limitations of claim 21 as stated above. Andrey further teaches grasping body (11) has a substantially cylindrical configuration.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Andrey as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Davis et al. (US 9926185) (hereinafter Davis).
Regarding Claim 24
Modified Andrey teaches all the limitations of claim 21 as shown above. Modified Andrey does not teach the ENFit® coupling further includes an elongated bore with an outer surface, the outer surface including a frustoconical portion extending from the spout engaging end and terminating at a beveled portion.
Davis teaches a container assembly (below – Fig. 1, 2, and 4) comprising: a container (B) with a container body and a spout providing fluid communication with the volume; a dispensing cap (10) coupled to the spout in fluid tight engagement, the dispensing cap comprising: a grasping body (28) having an outer surface, and the grasping body having a lower end which is spaced apart from the pouch body; a spout engaging bore (i.e. inner surface of 28) structurally configured to engage the spout; a spout engaging end (22) having an outlet opening that is in fluid communication with the spout, and in turn, the volume; and a dispensing coupling (24) extending from the spout engaging end, with the dispensing coupling being in fluid communication with the outlet opening, the dispensing coupling comprising an ENFit® coupling; a dispensing cover (38) positionable to overlie the dispensing coupling, the dispensing cover further comprising: a bore cover (42) extending from an inner surface of the dispensing cover, structurally configured to engage a terminal end of the dispensing coupling; and a live hinge assembly having: a hinge component (46); and wherein the ENFit® coupling further includes an elongated bore with an outer surface, the outer surface including a frustoconical portion extending from the spout engaging end and terminating at a beveled portion, as can be seen in Fig. 4 below (Col. 5, Ln. 1-27).
PNG
media_image7.png
495
301
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
646
566
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Andrey and Davis are analogous inventions in the field of container assemblies with ENFit® couplings. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the ENFit® coupling of Andrey with the teachings of the ENFit® coupling of Davis as the two are functional equivalents able to achieve the predictable result of an ENFit® coupling that is able to be closed by a dispensing cover and attach to an eternal feeding system. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference as applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. See the updated rejection above.
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 15 September 2026
Prosecution Insights