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 .
The amendments filed 12/3/2025 have been entered.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: reference number 102 used for the main body and the cap.
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 5-21 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 and 16 recite the new limitation “a nipple extending from the proximal end of the central passage”. This limitation is not disclosed or supported by the original disclosure, not found in the drawings, and contradicted by paragraph 0050 of the original specification. It is not clear how the device would function if the nipple 108 extended from the proximal end of the central passage 104. Therefore the limitation is considered new matter and will not be treated on the merits.
Claim 1 and 21 recite the new limitation “a nipple cap removably attached to the body cap”. This limitation is not supported by the original disclosure since based on the current claim set the limitation is considered distinct from the limitation of the originally supported claim 2 “wherein the nipple cap is reversibly attached to the body cap”. The removable attachment of the nipple cap from the body cap is not shown or otherwise disclosed in the original disclosure. Therefore the limitation is considered new matter and will not be treated on the merits.
Claim 1 and 16 recite the new limitation “the tip of the syringe body passes through the one-way valve into the nipple”. There is no support for the tip of the syringe body passing “into the nipple”, which is neither shown nor disclosed in the original disclosure (i.e. at paragraphs 0049-50 “the top tapered end of the syringe” is not “the tip of the syringe body” as claimed), and Applicant’s Fig. 17 shows the tip fully inserted and yet clearly shy of being “into the nipple”. Therefore the limitation is considered new matter and will not be treated on the merits.
Claim 1 and 16 recite the new limitation “wherein the syringe body is concealed within the central passage”. However, absent any special definition of “concealed” anywhere in Applicant’s original specification, and based upon the common definition of “concealed” (“kept out of sight or hidden from view”, see Dictionary definition attached), the original disclosure cannot support the limitation, since the syringe body (which includes the plunger) is always viewable from the bottom (see Applicant’s Fig. 16 and 17). Therefore the limitation is considered new matter and will not be treated on the merits.
Claim 1 recites the new limitation “wherein the nipple includes a sealed mixing chamber”. However, this structure is not found in the original disclosure, and not supported by the drawings at Fig. 17 (where is the sealed mixing chamber? Is it sealed from the remainder of the main body? If so, how does fluid from the syringe enter the “sealed” mixing chamber?). Therefore the limitation is considered new matter and will not be treated on the merits.
Claim 10 recites the new limitation “a sealed chamber inside the nipple”. However, this structure is not found in the original disclosure, and not supported by the drawings at Fig. 17 (where is the sealed chamber inside the nipple? Is it sealed from the remainder of the main body? If so, how does fluid from the syringe enter the “sealed” chamber?). Therefore the limitation is considered new matter and will not be treated on the merits.
Claim 11 recites the new limitation “wherein the syringe body remains concealed within the central passage during delivery”. However, absent any special definition of “concealed” anywhere in Applicant’s original specification, and based upon the common definition of “concealed” (“kept out of sight or hidden from view”, see Dictionary definition attached), the original disclosure cannot support the limitation, since the syringe body (which includes the plunger) is always viewable from the bottom (see Applicant’s Fig. 16 and 17). Further, “delivery” is interpreted as the act of actuating the plunger, and therefore the plunger is viewable from almost every angle until the plunge is finished “delivering”, at which point it is still viewable from the bottom. Therefore the limitation is considered new matter and will not be treated on the merits.
Claim 16 recites the new limitation “wherein the nipple cap and the body cap are configured for repeated attachment and removal without impairing engagement”. This limitation is not supported by the original disclosure since based on the current claim set the limitation is considered distinct from the limitation of the originally supported claims 1 and 3 “wherein the nipple cap is reversibly attached to the body cap”. The repeated attachment and removal of the nipple cap from the body cap is not shown or otherwise disclosed in the original disclosure. Therefore the limitation is considered new matter and will not be treated on the merits.
Claim 21 recites the new limitation “wherein the nipple cap is removably secured”. This limitation is not supported by the original disclosure since based on the current claim set the limitation is considered distinct from the limitation of the originally supported claims 1 and 3 “wherein the nipple cap is reversibly attached to the body cap”. The removably securement of the nipple cap from the body cap is not shown or otherwise disclosed in the original disclosure. Therefore the limitation is considered new matter and will not be treated on the merits.
Claim 11 recites the new limitations “filling the main body with a fluid” and “actuating a plunger of the syringe body to deliver the fluid from the syringe body into the nipple for mixing with the fluid”. It is not clear how the main body fluid gets into the syringe body for delivery into the nipple, and further the claim reads as if the fluid is to mix with itself (“to deliver the fluid…for mixing with the fluid”). The limitations are not supported by the original disclosure, and therefore considered new matter and will not be treated on the merits.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “wherein the body cap includes an opening through which the nipple extends”, while also including the claim 1 limitation “wherein the nipple extends through a central opening in the body cap”. There is no support for the nipple extending through both an opening of the body cap and a central opening of the body cap. Meanwhile, if the central opening and opening are the same element, then the limitations of claim 3 fail to further limit those of claim 1. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as refefring to the same opening.
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 11-15 and 17-21 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 11 recites the limitation "the main body". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 12, 13, 14, and 15 recite the limitation "The method of claim 10", however, there is no method in claim 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21 recite the limitation "The feeding system of claim 15", however claim 15 does not disclose a feeding system. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the contents". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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) 1-3, 5-21, as best understood in light of the issues noted above, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 5,383,906 (Burchett et al. of record), in view of US Patent No. 2,793,776 (Lipari hereinafter).
In re claim 1, with reference to Figs. 1 and 12-15, Burchett et al. discloses: A baby bottle (1-4) with syringe receiver (4), comprising: a main body (1) comprising a fluid container with a central passage having a proximal end and a distal end (see below): a one way valve (33) attached to the proximal end of the central passage (see Figs. 12 and 15); a nipple (14); a body cap (20) attached to the main body; and a syringe body (5/8) having a tip (10) and a syringe plunger (8), wherein the syringe body is inserted into the distal end of the central passage such that the tip of the syringe body passes through the one-way valve (see Figs. 12 and 15), wherein the nipple extends through a central opening in the body cap (20, see Fig. 7), and wherein the syringe body is partially concealed within the central passage when the plunger is actuated to deliver a fluid into the nipple (see fig. 1), wherein the nipple includes a mixing chamber (18) configured to receive and combine medication delivered from the syringe body with fluid contained in the nipple.
[AltContent: textbox (Central Passage)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Distal End)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Proximal End)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
682
259
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
794
518
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Burchett et al. fails to disclose a nipple cap.
However, with reference to Fig. 1, Lipari discloses a nipple for a bottle having a nipple cap (28) removably and reversibly attached to a body cap (13, 14, 15) (column 1, lines 45-51).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provided a nipple cap (“nipple shield”) to the bottle of Burchett et al. as taught by Lipari for the predictable purposes of shielding and thereby protecting the nipple from damage, contamination, or the like.
PNG
media_image3.png
591
419
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In re claim 2, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Burchett et al. in view of Lipari discloses the claimed invention including wherein the nipple cap is reversibly attached to the body cap (as in re claim 1 above).
In re claim 3, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Burchett et al. in view of Lipari discloses the claimed invention including wherein the body cap includes an opening through which the nipple extends (as in re claim 1 above).
In re claim 5, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Burchett et al. in view of Lipari discloses the claimed invention including wherein the syringe body is aligned with the central passage along a longitudinal axis of the main body (See Burchett et al. figs. 1 and 3).
In re claim 6, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Burchett et al. in view of Lipari discloses the claimed invention including wherein the one-way valve prevents reverse flow of the fluid from the nipple into the syringe body (depending upon insertion depth of syringe body in the central passage, Burchett et al. column 7, lines 54-57 “The purpose of the fold-out portion 33 is to prevent juice, milk or formula from entering the internal sleeve when filling the bottle, as shown in FIG. 14”).
In re claim 7, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Burchett et al. in view of Lipari discloses the claimed invention including wherein the plunger of the syringe body is operable to expel the fluid from the syringe body into the nipple (See Fig. 1).
In re claim 8, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Burchett et al. in view of Lipari discloses the claimed invention including wherein the central passage guides the syringe tip toward the one-way valve (see Fig. 1).
In re claim 9, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Burchett et al. in view of Lipari discloses the claimed invention including wherein the nipple includes a chamber (18) configured to receive fluid delivered from the syringe body (See Fig. 1).
In re claim 10, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Burchett et al. in view of Lipari discloses the claimed invention including wherein the nipple cap (28) covers at least a portion of the nipple during attachment, wherein the fluid and medication combine within a chamber (18) inside the nipple to form a homogeneous mixture before delivery to the user (See Fig. 1).
In re claim 11, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Burchett et al. in view of Lipari discloses A method of administering fluid to a user with a baby bottle having a syringe receiver, comprising: filling the main body with a fluid: attaching a body cap and a nipple to the main body; attaching a nipple cap to the body cap; inserting a syringe body into a distal end of a central passage of the main body; advancing a tip of the syringe body through a one-way valve at a proximal end of the central passage; and actuating a plunger of the syringe body to deliver the fluid from the syringe body into the nipple for mixing with the fluid, wherein the syringe body remains partially concealed within the central passage during delivery (columns 4-6, lines 24-16, and as in re claim 1 above).
In re claim 12, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Burchett et al. in view of Lipari discloses the claimed invention including wherein the nipple cap is removed before administering fluid to the user (Lipari column 3, lines 57-63).
In re claim 13, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Burchett et al. in view of Lipari discloses the claimed invention including partially concealing the syringe body from view of the user during feeding (as best understood as in re claim 1 above).
In re claim 14, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Burchett et al. in view of Lipari discloses the claimed invention including wherein the contents delivered from the syringe body combine with the fluid inside the nipple (as in re claim 1 above).
In re claim 15, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Burchett et al. in view of Lipari discloses the claimed invention including wherein actuating the plunger directs liquid through the one-way valve into the nipple (Burchett et al., column 5, lines 45-51).
In re claim 16, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Burchett et al. in view of Lipari discloses A feeding system, comprising: a main body comprising a fluid container with a central passage having a proximal end and a distal end; a one-way valve positioned at the proximal end of the central passage; a nipple; a body cap attached to the main body, the body cap including an opening through which the nipple extends; a nipple cap removably attached to the body cap; and a syringe body having a tip and a plunger, the syringe body inserted into the distal end of the central passage such that the tip of the syringe body passes through the one-way valve into the nipple (as in re claim 1 above), wherein the nipple cap and the body cap are configured for repeated attachment and removal without impairing engagement (as taught by Lipari in re claim 1 above), and wherein the syringe body remains at least partially concealed within the central passage during use (as best understood in re claim 1 above).
In re claim 17, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Burchett et al. in view of Lipari discloses the claimed invention including wherein the nipple extends through the opening in the body cap (as in re claims 1 and 3 above).
In re claim 18, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Burchett et al. in view of Lipari discloses the claimed invention including wherein the syringe body is aligned with the central passage along a longitudinal axis of the main body (as in re claim 5 above).
In re claim 19, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Burchett et al. in view of Lipari discloses the claimed invention including wherein the one-way valve is positioned to receive the tip of the syringe body and to prevent reverse flow from the nipple into the syringe body (as in re claim 6 above).
In re claim 20, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Burchett et al. in view of Lipari discloses the claimed invention including wherein the nipple defines a chamber configured to receive fluid delivered from the syringe body through the one-way valve (as in re claim 9 above).
In re claim 21, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Burchett et al. in view of Lipari discloses the claimed invention including wherein the nipple cap is removably secured to cover at least a portion of the nipple between uses (as in re claim 1 above).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the original claim(s) 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
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 ANDREW T KIRSCH whose telephone number is (571)270-5723. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9a-5p EST.
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.
/ANDREW T KIRSCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733