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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Restriction
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I, Claims 1-14 and 26-29 in the reply filed on December 14, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no serious burden to search all of the inventions {Remarks, Page 3 Lines 3-12 and Page 4 Lines 6-14}. This is not found persuasive because of the following.
In Page 3 Lines 3-12, the features of the container in Invention II in the independent claim are not required in the invention of the nipple in Invention I in the independent claim. Also, Invention I and II could be subcombinations that are useful together.
In Page 4 Lines 6-14, the material of metal to make the invention can have some resiliency in the metal as all materials have some resiliency or flexibility to them.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 15-25 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected inventions, with there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on December 14, 2025.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informality: Paragraph 71 Line 9 could read, “…base 222 along direction DA
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: Ref. No 712 [Fig. 7], and Ref. No. 1130 [Figs. 12 and 13].
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 Objections
Claims 26-29 are objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 26 Line 2 could read, “…a nipple for the baby bottle ….”
Claim 28 Lines 10-11 could read, “…an upper [[a]] circumference of the upper portion ….”
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 1-14 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.
Re Claim 1, the claim recites, “A nipple for a baby bottle”, and goes into other features of the nipple including, an elongated tip [Line 2], a base [Line 4], and one or more ribs [Line 9], as would be expected for a nipple. However, the claim also mentions “…the inner surface of the base facing towards a container of the baby bottle ….” [Lines 5-6] Is the claimed invention a nipple for a baby bottle, or the combination of the nipple and the container?
Claims 2-14 are also rejected under §112(b) – indefiniteness, as being dependent from rejected base claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-3 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rees (2012/0074090).
Re Claim 1, Rees – a teat for a baby bottle – discloses a nipple [1] for a baby bottle, comprising: an elongated tip [3] formed with one or more flow holes [11] through which fluid flows, the elongated tip having an inner surface and an outer surface: a base [2] connected to the elongated tip and wider than the elongated tip, the base comprising an inner surface and an outer surface, the inner surface of the base facing towards a container of the baby bottle and connected to the inner surface of the elongated tip, and the outer surface of the base facing away from the container and connected to the outer surface of the elongated tip; and one or more ribs [8 and 9] on at least a part of the inner surface of the base and configured to enhance elastic recovery of the nipple from elongation or contraction of the base in an axial direction of the nipple [Paragraph 29 Lines 19-37], a portion of the one or more ribs in the inner surface slanted relative to an axial direction of the nipple [Figs. 1 and 4].
Re Claim 2, Rees discloses a subset of the one or more ribs extend into the inner surface of the elongated tip to enhance elastic recovery of the elongated tip from collapse or compression in a radial direction of the nipple [Fig. 2].
Re Claim 3, Rees discloses the one or more ribs other than the subset of the one or more ribs start and terminate within the inner surface of the base [Fig. 1].
Re Claim 10, Rees discloses the elongated tip, the base and the one or more ribs form a unitary body [Fig. 1].
Re Claim 11, Rees discloses the elongated tip, the base and the one or more ribs are made of silicone [Paragraph 48].
Re Claim 12, Rees discloses the elongated tip, the base and the one or more ribs are fabricated simultaneously by an injection molding [Paragraph 48].
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 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rees.
Re Claim 4, Rees does not explicitly discloses that the one or more ribs comprises three sets of ribs, portions of ribs in each of the sets of ribs oriented in different directions. However, Rees does disclose the orientation of placement of three sets of ribs, portions of ribs in each of the sets of ribs oriented in different directions [Rees, Paragraph 29 Lines 29-37, and Paragraph 31]. The Applicant believes the claimed invention has an improvement over the prior art, when the prior art does disclose that there can be additional ribs in the nipple portion. See MPEP 2143 (I)(C) and (E). One of ordinary skill would be able to modify the amount of ribs in the Rees nipple to have three sets of ribs in different directions, before the effective filing date of the invention with predictable and obvious results, to be able to withstand the pressure applied to the teat while drinking from the nipple [Rees, Paragraph 9 Lines 9-18].
Re Claim 5, Rees discloses the claimed invention according to Claim 4 above; further, Rees discloses the three sets of ribs comprises a first set of ribs oriented in a first direction and a second set of ribs oriented in a second direction, wherein a projection of the first direction onto a plane perpendicular to the axial direction forms an angle of 120 degrees relative to a projection of the second direction onto the plane [Fig. 1].
Re Claim 6, Rees discloses the first set of ribs comprises an adjacent series of ribs of which portions extend into the elongated tip, and another adjacent series of ribs that do not extend into the elongated tip [Paragraph 29 Lines 29-37, and Paragraph 31].
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rees as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Roehrig (2019/0099330).
Re Claim 7, Rees does not expressly disclose that the nipple further comprises at least one check valve in the base. However, Roehrig – a teat for a baby bottle – discloses nipple further comprises at least one check valve [Roehrig, 14] in the base [Roehrig, Figs. 1 and 4]. The Applicant believes the claimed invention has an improvement over the prior art, when the prior art does disclose that there can be a check valve in the base portion of the nipple. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). All of the features of the claimed invention are in the prior art, and one of ordinary skill would be able to modify the Rees nipple to have a check valve in the base, before the effective filing date of the invention with predictable and obvious results, “so as to allow for a pressure equalization in the bottle interior during drinking by letting in air.” [Roehrig, Paragraph 89 Lines 4-5].
Re Claim 8, Rees in view of Roehrig discloses the claimed invention according to claim 7 above; further, the combination discloses the one or more ribs are located between the at least one check valve and the one or more flow holes [Roehrig, Fig. 5].
Re Claim 9, Rees does not expressly disclose that a thickness of the base at locations without the one or more ribs is between 1.5mm and 6mm and a thickness of the elongated tip at locations without the one or more ribs is between 0.5mm and 1.5mm. However, Roehrig discloses that for the nipple, a thickness of the base at locations without the one or more ribs is between 1.5mm and 6mm [Roehrig, Paragraph 47 Lines 1-2] and a thickness of the elongated tip at locations without the one or more ribs is between 0.5mm and 1.5mm [Paragraph 47 Lines 2-4]. The Applicant believes the claimed invention has an improvement over the prior art, when the prior art does disclose that the various possible dimensions of the nipple in the base and in the tip. See MPEP 2143 (I)(C) and (E). One of ordinary skill would be able to modify the base thickness and the tip thickness in the Rees nipple to have a thickness of the base at locations without the one or more ribs is between 1.5mm and 6mm and a thickness of the elongated tip at locations without the one or more ribs is between 0.5mm and 1.5mm, before the effective filing date of the invention with predictable and obvious results, for a proper simulation of a mother’s breast while feeding the baby, and since 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. See MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A).
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rees as applied to claim 1 above in view of Richard (CA 2964545).
Re Claim 13, Rees does not expressly disclose that the outer surface of the base is formed with a plurality of flow indicators, and a marking associated with one of the flow indicators. However, Richard – a multi-flow venting nipple – discloses the outer surface of the base [Richard, 14] has a plurality of flow indicators [Richard, [26], and a marking [Richard, 18] associated with one of the flow indicators [Richard, Fig. 1]. The Applicant believes the claimed invention has an improvement over the prior art, when the prior art does disclose multiple flow indicators and markings for the flow indicators for the nipple. See MPEP 2143 (I)(A). One of ordinary skill would be able to modify the Rees nipple to have additional flow indicators and markings, before the effective filing date of the invention with predictable and obvious results, “to provide an infant feeding nipple with multiple flow rates and adequate venting at each flow rate.” [Richard, Paragraph 5].
Re Claim 14, Rees does not expressly disclose that the base further comprises a flange that is captured by a collar to secure the nipple to the container. However, Richard discloses the base [Richard, 14] further comprises a flange that is captured by a collar [Richard, 24] to secure the nipple to the container [Richard, 20, Fig. 8]. The Applicant believes the claimed invention has an improvement over the prior art, when the prior art does disclose a collar can connect the container to the nipple. See MPEP 2143 (I)(A). One of ordinary skill would be able to modify the Rees nipple to be attached to a container by a collar, before the effective filing date of the invention with predictable and obvious results, to secure the nipple to the container.
Claims 26-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rees in view of Richard.
Re Claim 26, Rees discloses a nipple [1] for a baby bottle, comprising: an elongated tip [3] formed with one or more flow holes [11] through which fluid flows, the elongated tip having an inner surface and an outer surface: a base [2] connected to the elongated tip and wider than the elongated tip, the base comprising an inner surface and an outer surface, the inner surface of the base facing towards a container of the baby bottle and connected to the inner surface of the elongated tip, and the outer surface of the base facing away from the container and connected to the outer surface of the elongated tip; and one or more ribs [8 and 9] on at least a part of the inner surface of the base and configured to enhance elastic recovery of the nipple from elongation or contraction of the base in an axial direction of the nipple [Paragraph 29 Lines 19-37], a portion of the one or more ribs in the inner surface slanted relative to an axial direction of the nipple [Figs. 1 and 4].
Rees does not expressly disclose a container configured to hold the fluid and secure onto the nipple; however, Richard discloses the nipple [Richard, 10] attached to the container [Richard, 20, Fig. 8]. The Applicant believes the claimed invention has an improvement over the prior art, when the prior art does disclose a collar can connect the container to the nipple. See MPEP 2143 (I)(A). One of ordinary skill would be able to modify the Rees nipple to be attached to a container by a collar, before the effective filing date of the invention with predictable and obvious results, to secure the nipple to the container.
Re Claim 27, Rees in view of Richard discloses the claimed invention according to claim 26 above; further, the combination discloses the base [Richard, 14] further comprises a flange that is captured by a collar [Richard, 24] to secure the nipple to the container [Richard, 20, Fig. 8].
Re Claim 28, Rees in view of Richard discloses the claimed invention according to claim 26 above; further, the combination discloses the container comprises: a rigid cylinder comprising: a first side surface formed with a screw for securing to a collar of the baby bottle, a second side surface at an opposite side of the first surface, a top surface connecting the first side surface and the second side surface, and a ring extending along a circumference of the second surface and connected to the second surface; and a resilient body comprising: an upper portion with an opening end and secured to the rigid ring by receiving the ring of the rigid cylinder in a cavity formed along an upper a circumference of the upper portion, and a lower portion with a closed end and extending from the upper portion [Richard, Paragraph 19 Lines 1-4].
Re Claim 29, Rees in view of Richard discloses the claimed invention according to claim 26 above; further, the combination discloses the first side surface of the rigid cylinder comprises one or more bumps [Richard, unnumbered top of the container, Fig. 8] configured to guide segments of a screw of the collar [Richard, 24] to engage starting points of the screw of the rigid cylinder.
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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT J HICKS whose telephone number is (571)270-1893. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30-5:00.
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 Aviles-Bosques can be reached at 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.
/ROBERT J HICKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736