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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6-8, 10-12, 14, 15, and 33-37, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silver et al. (US 6,257,847 B1) in view of Yodfat et al. (US 2011/0202005 A1).
With regard to claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 10, 14, 15, and 33, Silver et al. teach a drive unit for a breast pump, comprising: a housing (Figs. 1 and 2, members 14 and 22); a pressure unit disposed in the housing and comprising a pump and a drive motor (diaphragm pump 70, motor 28, Col. 12 lines 1-5); at least one other internal component disposed in the housing (the internal components are shown in Figs. 2 and 3, see in Fig. 1 these components can be closed within 14 behind 22 such that they are arranged in the housing, components include at least a user interface including 86 and 96 and components which connect that to 70); a unit comprising the pressure unit and at least one other internal component of the housing (Fig. 7, the at least one other internal component comprises member 86 containing min, med, and max display/interface elements and knob 96, Col. 7 lines 54-62, the components are coupled to each other and arranged on base structure 12, see 12 in Figs. 1 and 2, Col. 5 lines 9-20). Silver et al. teach a vibration reducing feature (Col. 12 lines 6-14) but do not teach a suspension as recited. However, Yodfat et al. teach various shock absorbing means which can equivalently include a pad similar to that found in Silver ([0007], [0050], Fig. 5A member 500) or a plurality of springs with elastomeric elements (Fig. 7 coil springs 60 elastomeric members 62, [0054]). Such shock absorbing elements aid in preventing damage to the pump (abstract). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a suspension element in Silver as Silver teaches reducing vibrations via elastomeric padding and Yodfat et al. teach equivalently absorbing shock to aid in preventing damage with a pad or spring and resilient member. As combined the shock absorbing elements provided by Yodaft et al., which includes a plurality of springs and elastomeric members, would be placed below 12, between 12 and 14 which couples the base to the housing in Silver as Yodfat et al. teach these members to be placed between the pump housing and the outer housing. As such the suspension decouples noise-generating components from the housing while mechanically coupling the unit and the housing.
With regard to claim 8, see Yodfat et al. which teach materials for the elastomeric pad ([0050]).
With regard to claims 11 and 12, Silver et al. and Yodfat et al. as combined above tach a breast pump comprising a drive unit according to claim 1 (see rejection above), and an expression kit for position on a user’s breast to express breast milk therefrom, wherein the expression unit comprises a funnel (Silver et al. Fig. 1 member 36), a container (Silver et al. Fig. 1 member 38), and a pipe (Silver et al. Fig. 1 member 18) which is connected to the drive unit. Further regarding claim 12, see Silver et al. diaphragm pump 70 and motor 28 (Col. 12 lines 1-5) connected to the expression kit.
With regard to claims 34-37, as combined with Yodaft et al. the suspension provided is the same as claimed by Applicant and would necessarily filter out vibrations. The claims do not recite any particular values for the recited frequencies. The natural frequency would depend on the particular components provided. Various frequencies would necessarily be filtered which would be considered as high or mid-frequency. Additionally, Yodfat et al. teach the suspension may be designed in various manners to support specific components and achieve desired and/or optimum shock absorption. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the suspension filter high and mid-frequency vibrations as Yodfat et al. teach the suspension may be modified to achieve desired shock characteristics and as such one of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying Silver et al. and Yodfat et al. to achieve the recited filtering and it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 21-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silver et al. (US 6,257,847 B1) and Yodfat et al. (US 2011/0202005 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Alvarez et al. (US 2015/0283311 A1).
With regard to claims 21 and 22, Silver et al. teach a controller (Col. 12 lines 1-5) but does not specifically disclose a processor and a memory. However, Alvarez et al. teach a breast pump which has a processor and memory which allows pumping programs to be run and data to be stored, analyzed, and transmitted (see at least [0005], [0012], [0017], [0021], [0137]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use controller components including a processor and memory in Silver et al. as in Alvarez et al. as this would allow for data to be stored and analyzed for enhanced convenience and efficiency.
With regard to claims 23 and 25, see Fig. 7member 86 containing min, med, and max display/interface elements and knob 96 (Col. 7 lines 54-62).
With regard to claim 26, an on off switch can also be included on the interface (Col. 7 lines 23-25).
With regard to claims 24 and 27, Silver et al. do not disclose the interface comprises a display to provide volume information or an audible signal. However, Alvarez et al. teach a breast pump which measures volume and data measured can be displayed on a display on the pump or audibly transmitted which is beneficial for alerting the user to device performance (see at least [0017], [0028], [0099], [0102], [0116], [0126]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a display and indicator in Silver et al. as in Alvarez et al. as this is beneficial for providing additional information to the user. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably understand a speaker would provide an audible alert.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6-8, 10, 11, 14, and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnes (US 2016/0067393 A1) in view of Myers (US 2008/0275386 A1).
With regard to claim 1, 4, 6-8, 10, 14, and 33, Barnes teaches a drive unit for a breast pump, comprising: a housing (Fig. 8 member 110); a pressure unit disposed in the housing and comprising a pump (Fig. 6 member 60) and a drive motor (Fig. 6 member 80); at least one other internal component disposed in the housing (Fig. 6 member 70); a unit comprising the pressure unit and at least one other internal component of the housing (Fig. 6). Barnes teaches members 110 and 112 are used for noise dampening ([0038]) but does not explicitly disclose a suspension. However, Myers teaches a breast pump in which motor is supported on a base plate connected to the housing via rubber bushings to absorb shock and reduce noise ([0060], [0066], [0075], Fig. 13 motor 54, plate, 60, bushings 25). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to attach the motor and pump to the housing via a plate and bushings in Barnes as in Myers as Myers teaches this to be beneficial in reducing noise and would aid in securing the pump components within the housing to further reduce noise.
With regard to claim 11, Barnes and Myers teach a breast pump comprising a drive unit according to claim 1 (see the rejection above), and an expression kit for positioning on a user's breast to express breast milk therefrom, wherein the expression kit comprises a funnel (Barnes Fig. 1 member 12), a container (Barnes Fig. 1 member 40) and a pipe which is fixedly or removably connectable to the drive unit (Barnes Fig. 1 member 50). Further, regarding claim 12, the expression kit is fixedly or removably connected to the pressure unit (Barnes Fig. 1 connected to 60 and 80).
Claim(s) 15 and 34-37 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnes (US 2016/0067393 A1) in view of Myers (US 2008/0275386 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of Yodfat et al. (US 2011/0202005 A1).
With regard to claim 15 and 34-37, Barnes combined with Myers teaches rubber bushings but does not disclose a spring. However, Yodfat et al. teach various shock absorbing means which can equivalently include a plurality of elastomeric members similar to Myers ([0007], [0052], Fig. 6A members 502) or a plurality of springs with elastomeric elements (Fig. 7 coil springs 60 elastomeric members 62, [0054]). Such shock absorbing elements aid in preventing damage to the pump (abstract). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a suspension element in Barnes and Myers as Myers teach using elastomeric bushings and Yodfat et al. teach equivalently absorbing shock to aid in preventing damage with a pad or spring and resilient member. Further, with regard to claims 34-37, as combined with Yodaft et al. the suspension provided is the same as claimed by Applicant and would necessarily filter out vibrations. The claims do not recite any particular values for the recited frequencies. The natural frequency would depend on the particular components provided. Various frequencies would necessarily be filtered which would be considered as high or mid-frequency. Additionally, Yodfat et al. teach the suspension may be designed in various manners to support specific components and achieve desired and/or optimum shock absorption. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the suspension filter high and mid-frequency vibrations as Yodfat et al. teach the suspension may be modified to achieve desired shock characteristics and as such one of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying Silver et al. and Yodfat et al. to achieve the recited filtering and it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 21-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnes (US 2016/0067393 A1) and Myers (US 2008/0275386 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Alvarez et al. (US 2015/0283311 A1).
With regard to claims 21 and 22, Barnes teaches a controller ([0030]) but does not specifically disclose a processor and a memory. However, Alvarez et al. teach a breast pump which has a processor and memory which allows pumping programs to be run and data to be stored, analyzed, and transmitted (see at least [0005], [0012], [0017], [0021], [0137]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use controller components including a processor and memory in Barnes as in Alvarez et al. as this would allow for data to be stored and analyzed for enhanced convenience and efficiency.
With regard to claims 23 and 25, see [0030] controls to set the pump strength.
With regard to claim 26, Barnes shows a power supply with buttons on the side (Fig. 1) but does not explicitly disclose power control. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an interface to turn the device on and off as this is well known in the art and prevents wasting power.
With regard to claims 24 and 27, Barnes does not disclose the interface comprises a display to provide volume information or an audible signal. However, Alvarez et al. teach a breast pump which measures volume and data measured can be displayed on a display on the pump or audibly transmitted which is beneficial for alerting the user to device performance (see at least [0017], [0028], [0099], [0102], [0116], [0126]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a display and indicator in Silver et al. as in Alvarez et al. as this is beneficial for providing additional information to the user. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably understand a speaker would provide an audible alert.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 27, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the combination of Silver and Yodfat, Applicant argues the housing is a flexible material and that adding suspension to compartments 26a-c will not help. Though there are storage compartments, as combined the suspension is specifically added between the motor housing 12 and housing 14. Applicant remarks 12 does not move relative to other compartments 26 and is not suspended relative to 26. The Examiner does not find this to take away from adding suspension as it would still be beneficial to absorb vibrations as rejected above. Applicant argues adding a flexible, light-weight fabric from 12 to 14 would not change vibration to 14. Yodaft teaches using springs and elastomeric members for suspension, a similar structure would be added. One of ordinary skill would be able to determine the particular size/placement needed for the particular use. Further regarding the direction of forces, the Examiner maintains her position as in the action dated May 28, 2025. Regarding the combination of Barnes and Myers, though Barnes may refer to 110 as a dampening member it is also still a housing as components are housed within it. The Examiner maintains supplementing the housing of Barnes as taught by Myers is beneficial for additionally absorbing shock and reducing noise, this would more effectively accomplish the goals of Barnes and would yield the same result. [0060] of Myers recites that plate 60 supports the motor, as such the Examiner maintains supporting the components of Barnes on a plate for connection for suspension.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 EMILY L SCHMIDT whose telephone number is (571)270-3648. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday 7:00 AM to 4:30 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, Kevin Sirmons can be reached at 571-272-4965. 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.
/EMILY L SCHMIDT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783
Prosecution Insights