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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of the restriction in the reply filed on 7-29-2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the burden between the method claims and the apparatus claims is not significant. This argument is persuasive. The method claims applying to the embodiment that Applicant selected are examined.
However, the election of species of the distinct species disclosed by Applicant’s specification is upheld.
Applicant argues that the embodiment of Figs. 1-2 covers all the distinct embodiment disclosed in the application. The Examiner disagrees. The embodiment of Figures 1-2 is directed to a feeding device end connector #154 and a food container end connector #154. According to the Applicant’s specification, this embodiment of the connector (#150) “will preferably be a quick connect device, such as a Luer lock connector, or almost any other fluidic quick disconnect apparatus.” See Applicant’s 0068.
Applicant’s disclosure does not state that this embodiment – Figs. 1-2 – is threaded or a snap fit. The embodiments of Figs. 11a-11D and Figs. 9 and 12 are distinct embodiments whose features do not read on one another. As such, Claims 3-5 are withdrawn. Applicant’s disclosure does not state that this embodiment includes a multiple connector steps. As such, Claims 6 and 9-11, 17-18, 21,27-29 are withdrawn.
As such, Claim 1-2, 7-8, 12-16, and 19-20, 22-26 are examined in this action.
Claims 3-6, 9-11, and 17-18, 21, and 27-30 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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 1-2, 7-8, 12-15 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.
In re Claim 1, “each connector step of the first set of connector steps having a distinct size to accommodate varying sizes of food container end connectors,” is indefinite. The Examiner notes that the claim is an apparatus claim claiming the structure of the device. The claim does not require different sized food containers or different ends – these structures are not affirmatively claimed. What is claimed is a connector with different diameter steps. The claims were examined as best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
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)(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 1-2, 7-8, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2013/0306647 to Sachdev.
In re Claim 1, Sachdev teaches an apparatus for feeding viscous food to a person, the apparatus (see Figs. 1-7) comprising:
a feeding device comprising a feeding surface configured to deliver the viscous food to the person (see Fig. 4, #8/36);
a food container (see Fig. 1, #10) configured to store the viscous food within a food storage portion, the food container comprising a food container end connector on an open end of the food storage portion (see Fig. 2, #11/12/13/14/15/16/17); and
a graduated connector including a first side and a second side (see Fig. 4, #6/7), wherein:
a) the first side includes a first set of connector steps (see Fig. 4, #6/9/23/22/26/25), each connector step of the first set of connector steps having a distinct size to accommodate varying sizes of food container end connectors (see Fig. 1, the Examiner notes that the claim claims the structure of diameters of different sizes which Sandev has); and
b) the second side is attached to the feeding device (see Fig. 4, #7/30/31).
In re Claim 2, Sachdev teaches wherein the food container end connector is configured to be removably attachable to a connector step selected from the first set of connector steps (see Para. 0007).
In re Claim 7, Sachdev teaches wherein the feeding device is removably attached to the second side of the graduated connector (see Fig. 2/4 and Figs. 5A/B).
In re Claim 8, Sachdev teaches wherein the feeding device comprises a feeding device end connector for removably attaching to the second side of the graduated connector (see Fig. 2/4 and Figs. 5A/B).
In re Claim 16, Sachdev teaches a method for feeding a person (see Sachdev, abstract), comprising:
selecting a feeding device comprising a feeding surface configured to deliver viscous food to the person (see Figs. 1-7, #1);
selecting a food container configured to store the viscous food, the food container comprising a food container end connector (see Figs. 1-7, #10);
providing a graduated connector comprising a first plurality of connector steps (see Fig. 4, #6/9/21/22/23/25/24/26), each connector step of the first plurality of connector steps having a distinct size to accommodate varying sizes of food container end connectors, and a second side attached to the feeding device (see Fig. 4, #6/9/21/22/23/25/24/26 which can be connected to different sized food container) ;
attaching the food container end connector to a selected connector step on the first side of the graduated connector, where the selected connector step is sized to securely fit the food container end connector (see Fig.1 and 5A/5B); and
pressing or squeezing the food container to expel an amount of the viscous food from the food container, through the graduated connector, onto the feeding surface of the feeding device (see Para. 0027 in view of Figs. 1-7); and subsequently feeding to the person from the feeding surface (see Para. 0025).
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.
Claims 12-13 and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2013/0306647 to Sachdev in view of US 2009/0227943 to Schultz.
In re Claim 12, Sachdev, does not teach a plurality of feeding devices, each of the plurality of feeding devices comprising a feeding surface of distinct size.
In re Claim 13, modified Sachdev, in re Claim 12 teaches wherein each of the plurality of feeding devices comprises a fixedly attached feeding device end connector of distinct size (see Figs. 6, 10, 11, 12 of Schultz showing each feeding device having distinct surfaces around the connector portion).
In re Claim 22, Sachdev does not teach further comprising selecting a plurality of feeding devices, each of the plurality of feeding devices comprising a feeding surface of distinct size. However, Schultz teaches that it is known in the art of feeding patients to provide different sized feeding devices (see Schultz, Fig. 6, #14, Fig. 10, #34, Fig. 11, #38, and Fig. 12, #60). In the same field of invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a feeding device of any known shape, including Figs. 6, 10, 11, 12 of Schultz). Doing so provides the user with different size options when administering the food to the patient.
In re Claim 23, modified Sachdev, in re Claim 22 teaches wherein each of the plurality of feeding devices comprises a fixedly attached feeding device end connector of distinct size (see Figs. 6, 10, 11, 12 of Schultz showing each feeding device having distinct surfaces around the connector portion).
Claims 14-15 and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2013/0306647 to Sachdev in view of WO2004089275A1 to Noble.
In re Claim 14, Sachdev does not teach further comprises a plurality of food containers, each of the plurality of food containers comprising a fixedly attached food container end connector of distinct size.
However, Noble teaches that it is known in the art to provide food containers of different sizes (see Noble teaching “The container may also be of a size adapted for infants (e.g. less than 250 ml, preferably from 10 to 200 ml, more preferably from 20 to 150 ml).
In the same field of invention, food containers, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filling date, to make the food structure having different sizes (i.e., able to hold different ml of food). Doing so allows the user to have different sized food containers which allows the user to have more versatility in feeding the patient.
In re Claim 15, as best understood, the structure of modified Sachdev, in re Claim 14, teaches wherein each of the plurality of food containers is configured to store different types of viscous food within the food storage portion of each of the plurality of food containers (see Sachdev, Para. 0025).
In re Claim 24, Sachdev does not teach further comprising selecting a plurality of food containers, each of the plurality of food containers comprising a fixedly attached food container end connector of distinct size.
However, Noble teaches that it is known in the art to provide food containers of different sizes (see Noble teaching “The container may also be of a size adapted for infants (e.g. less than 250 ml, preferably from 10 to 200 ml, more preferably from 20 to 150 ml).
In the same field of invention, food containers, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filling date, to make the food structure having different sizes (i.e., able to hold different ml of food). Doing so allows the user to have different sized food containers which allows the user to have more versatility in feeding the patient.
In re Claim 25, modified Sachdev, in re Claim 24, teaches wherein each distinct-sized food container end connector is configured to be removably attached to a suitable connector step from the first plurality of connector steps on the graduated connector (see Sachdev, Fig. 4, in view of Noble)
In re Claim 26, modified Sachdev, in re Claim 24, teaches wherein each of the plurality of food containers is configured to store different types of viscous food (see Sachdev, Para. 0025)
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2013/0306647 to Sachdev in view of US 9,675,525 to McBean.
In re Claim 19, Sachdev does not teach further comprising removably attaching the feeding device to the second side of the graduated connector. However, McBean teaches that it is known in the art of feeing devices to provide multiple shaped adapters (see McBean, Fig. 5, #30/30/30/30; see also Col. 9, ll. 22-50). In the same field of invention, feeding devices, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide various sized adapters to connect feeding device assemblies. Doing so allows the user to connect the device to assemblies of different sized connections (see McBean, Col. 9, ll. 22-50).
In re Claim 20, modified Sachdev, in re Claim 19, teaches further comprising providing a feeding device end connector fixedly attached to the feeding device for removably attaching the feeding device end connector to the second side of the graduated connector (see Sachdev, Figs. 1-7 in view of McBean Fig. 5).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN RILEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7786. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Boyer Ashley can be reached at 571-272-4502. 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.
/JONATHAN G RILEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights