DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to applicant's amendments filed 01/13/26.
The examiner acknowledges the amendments to the claims.
Claims 1-7 are pending in this application.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-7 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection set forth below, including previously cited reference Turnbough (U.S. Pub. No. 2004/0065635) which is relied upon for the newly recited limitations.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: lines 2-4 read “the proportionately weighted distribution element has a density and mass five times greater than a density and mass of said body”. To be consistent with the last two lines of Claim 1, upon which Claim 5 depends, the limitation in Claim 5 should instead read as --the proportionately weighted distribution element has a density and mass five times greater than a density and mass of the remainder of the body--. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turnbough (U.S. Pub. No. 2004/0065635) in view of Rossi (U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0257845).
Regarding claim 1, Turnbough discloses a pacifier or soothing device configured to have a portion 26/68 thereof inserted into the mouth of an infant (Figures 5-8) whereby such device is comprised of:
a body, said body having a top portion 14/15 and a bottom portion 12 (Figures 1-2);
with the top portion and the bottom portion being integrally formed (Id.; they are connected together, and therefore are integral);
with the top portion having a first embodiment and a second embodiment (top portion could have a nipple top 26 as in Figures 1-5, 7, or a sipping spout 66 as in Figures 6, 8);
with the bottom portion being hemispherical in shape ([0024]; “body 12 is formed in a semi-spherical shape”);
with the bottom portion having an outer surface and secured within the bottom portion proximate to the outer surface, a proportionately weighted distribution element (counterweight or anti-tip weight 28; Figures 5-8, [0031]-[0035]) having a dimension less than the outer surface of the bottom portion (see annotated Figure 5 below; the width of the weight 28 is less than the width of the outer surface of the bottom portion) and positioned to lower the center of gravity of the body towards a lower end of the bottom portion (due to a centered, lower position of counterweight/anti-tip weight 28);
with the proportionately weighted distribution element being located at the lower end of the bottom portion distal to the top portion, the proportionately weighted distribution element operative to automatically self-balance the body such that the body reverts to an upright position, with the top portion about the bottom portion, from a non-upright position, without application of external force (counterweight or anti-tip weight 28 is positioned and weighted so that the device self-rights and counters tipping to prevent or minimize the occurrence of the top portion touching a surface upon which the device is placed; [0031]-[0035])
FIGURE 5 OF TURNBOUGH
PNG
media_image1.png
804
647
media_image1.png
Greyscale
with the proportionately weighted distribution element being integrally formed in the lower end of the body (Id.; they are connected together, and therefore are integral).
However, Turnbough does not expressly disclose that the proportionately weighted distribution element having a density and mass greater than that of the remainder of the body (although Turnbough teaches in [0032] that “[c]ounterweight 28 can be formed of any suitable material and should have a weight that is sufficient to prevent tipping”).
In the same field of art, namely pacifiers or soothing devices, Rossi teaches in [0023]-[0025] a device having a proportionately weighted distribution element 102 in a bottom portion which is made of a heavier and denser material than a top portion 101 of the device. Although Rossi does not explicitly teach that the element 102 has a density and mass greater than a remainder of the body, one of ordinary skill in the art would acknowledge that the density and weight of the proportionately weighted distribution element could be optimized to ensure that the device is biased to an upright position. The amount of bias provided by the proportionately weighted distribution element could vary based on the weight of the device as a whole (Rossi; [0030]). One of ordinary skill in the art would know that a highly effective amount of bias could be achieved by providing a proportionately weighted distribution element having a density and weight greater than a remainder of the body.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the device of Turnbough such that the proportionately weighted distribution element has a density and mass greater than that of the remainder of the body since Rossi teaches that a heavier and denser element biases the device in an upright position ([0023]-[0025], [0030]), and doing so would increase the likelihood that the device moves back to the upright position, further preventing the top portion from getting dirty (Rossi; [0006]).
Regarding claim 2, Turnbough as modified teaches the outer surface of the bottom portion further includes a gripping member or handle 13 (Turnbough, Figure 2; [0030]) disposed thereon, and which thereof may be one or more.
Regarding claim 3, Turnbough as modified teaches the first embodiment of the top portion of the body is a nipple member 26 (Turnbough; Figures 1-5, 7).
Regarding claim 5, Turnbough as modified teaches the claimed invention, as discussed above, including the proportionately weighted distribution element has a density and mass greater than the body, except does not expressly teach the proportionately weighted distribution element has a density and mass five times greater than a density and mass of said (the remainder of the) body.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the density and mass of the proportionately weighted distribution element to be five times greater than a density and mass of the remainder of the body. Rossi teaches that a heavier and denser element biases the device in an upright position ([0023]-[0025]). The amount of bias provided by the proportionately weighted distribution element could vary based on the weight of the device as a whole (Rossi; [0030]), and therefore the density and weight of the proportionately weighted distribution element could be optimized to ensure that the device is biased to an upright position. One of ordinary skill in the art would know that a highly effective amount of bias could be achieved by providing a proportionately weighted distribution element having a density and weight five times greater than a remainder of the body which would increase the likelihood fivefold that the device moves to back to the upright position after being tilted or moved out of the upright position. Increasing the density and weight of the proportionately weighted distribution element relative to the remainder of the body would increase the amount of upright bias, which would considerably prevent the top portion from getting dirty (Rossi; [0006]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turnbough (U.S. Pub. No. 2004/0065635) in view of Rossi (U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0257845), as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Knifong (U.S. Pub. No. 2005/0251211).
Regarding claim 4, Turnbough as modified teaches the claimed invention, as discussed above, except for the second embodiment of the top portion being a teething ring member.
In [0012], [0027], [0028] Knifong teaches a second embodiment of a top portion being a teething ring member as an alternative to a first embodiment of a top portion being a nipple member.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify Rossi as modified with a teething ring member second embodiment as claimed, as taught by Knifong, so that the device has an additional feature of soothing sore gums on teething children ([0030], Knifong).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turnbough (U.S. Pub. No. 2004/0065635) in view of Rossi (U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0257845), as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Finell (U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0024599) and Picchetti (U.S. Patent No. 10,842,719).
Regarding claim 6, Turnbough as modified teaches the claimed invention, as discussed above, except for the proportionately weight distribution element is a refillable fluid filled chamber.
In Figure 6, Finell teaches a proportionately weight distribution element 30 being a fluid filled chamber (liquid 40, such as water; [0022]).
Furthermore, in Figures 1-2 and col. 3, lines 40-55 Picchetti teaches a fluid filled chamber 300 that may be refilled with liquid 900 via a cap 325 removable from neck 320 by a user.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify Turnbough as modified to have the proportionately weight distribution element be a refillable fluid filled chamber, as taught by Finell and Picchetti, since
Turnbough teaches in [0032] that “[c]ounterweight 28 can be formed of any suitable material”) and Rossi teaches that the proportionately weight distribution element can be made heavier in many other ways ([0025]), and since doing so would be substitution of one known proportionately weighted distribution mechanism for another, which would yield predictable results, namely ensuring that the device moves back to an upright position after being tilted or moved. See MPEP 2143. Additionally, the refillable aspect would allow a user to adjust the amount of weight of liquid in the chamber as needed.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turnbough (U.S. Pub. No. 2004/0065635) in view of Rossi (U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0257845), as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Jensen et al., hereinafter “Jensen” (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0029710).
Regarding claim 7, Turnbough as modified teaches the claimed invention, as discussed above, except for the proportionately weight distribution element being a gyroscopic motor.
In Figures 1-2, [0043] Jensen teaches a handheld device including a proportionately weight distribution element 26 having a gyroscopic motor 50, which stabilizes the device in a vertical orientation (see abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill the effective filing date to modify Turnbough as modified to have the proportionately weight distribution element be a gyroscopic motor, as taught by Jensen, since Turnbough teaches in [0032] that “[c]ounterweight 28 can be formed of any suitable material”) and Rossi teaches that the proportionately weight distribution element can be made in many other ways ([0025]), and in order to maintain the device in an upright, vertical orientation (Jensen; abstract). Additionally, doing so would be substitution of one known proportionately weighted distribution mechanism for another, which would yield predictable results, namely ensuring that the device moves back to an upright position after being tilted or moved. See MPEP 2143.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Korshak (U.S. Patent No. 4,096,966) teaches in Figure 4 a body and a proportionately weighted distribution element (a ballast 25 which may be a metal washer or piece of scrap metal; col. 4., lines 49-58) secured within a bottom portion of the body, and a remainder of the body made of plastic material (col. 4, lines 63-68).
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 DIANE D YABUT whose telephone number is (571)272-6831. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, Darwin Erezo can be reached at 571-272-4695. 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.
/DIANE D YABUT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771