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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because:
---The abstract is below the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The Office suggests that the abstract is amended to include further details.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
---Claim 12 recite the following:
“The valve apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a ptojection extending from the base, the projection defining a non-cylindrical profile.”.
Notice the misspelling of “a ptojection” in L1. Furthermore, notice the lack of antecedent basis for “the base” (the limitation of a base is found in claim 2 but claim 12 is not depedendent on claim 2). The Office suggests that the claim is amended as follows:
“The valve apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a projection extending from a base, the projection defining a non-cylindrical profile.”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 3-5 and 10 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 3 recite the following:
“The valve apparatus of claim 2, further comprising a cylindrical portion extending from the base and a valve configured in the cylindrical portion.”.
Notice in claim 3 L1 the limitation of “further comprising a cylindrical portion…”, however, intervening claim 2 L2-3 already recites the limitation of “a generally cylindrical portion extending from the base”. It is unclear and indefinite if the latter recitation of claim 3 L1 is the same as the previously recited in intervening claim 2 or if they are distinct from each other. Based on the disclosure, the Office will assume that they are the same “generally cylindrical portion 108”. If so, the Office suggests that claim 3 is amended as follows:
“The valve apparatus of claim 2, further comprising a valve configured in the cylindrical portion.”.
---Claims 4 and 5 recite the following:
“The valve apparatus of claim 2, further comprising a leash extending laterally from the base.”;
“The valve apparatus of claim 4, further comprising a loop or hoop attached to the leash.”.
Notice that the way the claims are written it makes them appear to be independent of the previously recited “leash portion extending from the valve portion” from intervening claim 1, however this appears misleading and contradictory to applicant’s disclosure. In other words, is the applicant attempting to claim two leashes (which is a non-illustrated embodiment) or is the leash and the loop/hoop part of the leash portion (which is supported by the specification and the drawings)? Based on the disclosure, the Office will assume that a claim drafting error occurred and the applicant is attempting to claim that the leash (112) and the loop/hoop (114) are part of the leash portion (104). If so, the Office suggests that claims 4 and 5 are amended as follows:
“The valve apparatus of claim 2, wherein the leash portion includes a leash extending laterally from the base.”;
“The valve apparatus of claim 4, wherein the leash portion includes a loop or hoop attached to the leash.”.
---Claim 10 recites the following:
“The valve apparatus of claim 2, further comprising a replaceable component valve structure.”.
The way claim 10 is written makes it appear as if the valve apparatus 100 further includes some form of “replaceable component valve structure”. However, this claim limitation appears misleading and contradictory to applicant’s disclosure. Notice at least Para. [0005] of the specification:
“[0005] Briefly and in general terms, the present disclosure is directed towards a leash valve apparatus or assembly. In a preferred embodiment, the leash valve is configured to be replaceably attached to a breast pump system component.”.
As best understood by the Office, applicant’s invention is directed to a check valve 100 used in a breast pump system 210 wherein the valve assembly includes valve portion 102 and leash portion 104, wherein the leash portion includes a hoop 114 tethered to the valve portion via the leash 112. This leashed arrangement allows the valve assembly to be replaceably attached to the breast pump system. As such, the Office will assume that a claim drafting error occurred and that the applicant meant to claim the feature of the leash valve being configured to be replaceably attached to the breast pump system as mentioned in at least Para. [0005]. If so, the Office suggests that the claim is amended as follows:
“The valve apparatus of claim 2, wherein the valve apparatus is configured to be replaceably attached to the breast pump system.”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 6 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a2 as being anticipated by Alvarez US-20180154055.
Regarding claims 1, 6 and 12, as best understood by the Office, Alvarez US-20180154055 teaches in Figs. 1-16b (see at least Figs. 1, 3B-3C and 9A-9B) teaches the limitations of:
---Claim 1. A valve apparatus (the valve assembly including valve 206 of Alvarez) for a breast pump system (system 100 of Alvarez), comprising: a valve portion (in Fig. 9A-9B of Alvarez see the right side portion of the valve assembly including the valve 206); a leash portion (in Fig. 9A-9B of Alvarez see the remaining left side portion of the valve assembly including the retaining ring 293) extending from the valve portion (see at least Figs. 9A-9B of Alvarez).
---Claim 6. The valve apparatus of claim 1, wherein the valve apparatus is configured to be attached to the breast pump system (see at least Figs. 1, 3B-3C and 9A-9B and Para. [0091]).
---Claim 12. The valve apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a projection (see either the intermediate leash portion of Alvarez that connects the ring 293 to the base of the valve portion or the projection of the duckbill valve 206 extending from the base of the valve portion) extending from the base (see the base/body portion of the valve portion of Alvarez), the projection defining a non-cylindrical profile (see at least Figs. 9A-9B of Alvarez).
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2-5, 7 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alvarez US-20180154055.
Regarding claims 2-5, 7 and 10, as best understood by the Office, the device of Alvarez US-20180154055 fails to explicitly disclose that the shape of the base of the valve portion as claimed. However, one of ordinary skill in the art can recognize that the base/body portion of the valve portion of the device of Alvarez can have any desired shape so long as the device is capable of removably attaching to the breast pump system and allowing the check valve to function. Additionally, notice that the applicant does not discloses in the specification the criticality of the shape of the base of the valve portion being generally rectangular or square shaped. Furthermore, the court has held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant In reDailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (see MPEP 2144.04 IV B). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time that the invention was effectively filed to modify shape of at least a portion of the body of the valve portion of the device of Alvarez to include a base with a rectangular or square shape, since such a modification is a matter of design choice absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the base is significant (see MPEP 2144.04 IV B).
As such, the modified device of Alvarez US-20180154055 teaches the limitations of:
---Claim 2. The valve apparatus of claim 1, wherein the valve portion includes a generally rectangular or square base (see the body of the valve portion of Alvarez as modified above to include at least portion of the body to be shaped as a generally rectangular or square base) and a generally cylindrical portion (see the portion of the valve portion of Alvarez that includes the valve 206 and annular protrusion 291) extending from the base (see at least Figs. 9A-9B of Alvarez).
---Claim 3. The valve apparatus of claim 2, further comprising a cylindrical portion (see the portion of the valve portion of Alvarez that includes the valve 206 and annular protrusion 291) extending from the base and a valve (valve 206 of Alvarez) configured in the cylindrical portion (see at least Figs. 9A-9B of Alvarez).
---Claim 4. The valve apparatus of claim 2, further comprising a leash (see the intermediate leash/tether portion of Alvarez that connects the ring 293 to the base of the valve portion) extending laterally from the base (see at least Figs. 9A-9B of Alvarez).
---Claim 5. The valve apparatus of claim 4, further comprising a loop or hoop (reinforcing ring 293 of Alvarez) attached to the leash (see at least Figs. 9A-9B of Alvarez).
---Claim 7. The valve apparatus of claim 2, further comprising a duckbill valve (duckbill valve 206 of Alvarez) configured in the cylindrical portion.
---Claim 10. The valve apparatus of claim 2, further comprising a replaceable component valve structure (as best understood by the Office, the device of Alvarez as mentioned in at least Para. [0091] contains similar structure and function as applicant’s invention with the valve 206 being removably coupled to the breast pump system in order to allow a user to clean the system easier as well as maintaining the valve tethered to the system during its maintenance via the ring 293 in a similar manner as applicant’s loop 114, see also at least Figs. 1, 3B-3C and 9A-9B of Alvarez).
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alvarez US-20180154055 as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Redmond US-4904236.
Regarding claims 8-9, the modified device of Alvarez US-20180154055 fails to disclose that the valve 206 is an umbrella-type check valve as claimed. However, one of ordinary skill in the art can recognize that duckbill valves like valve 206 of Alvarez and umbrella valves are different types of check valves that while having different structures, they all achieve the same function of automatically allowing flow in one direction and preventing flow in the other direction (hence the name “check valve” or “one-way valve” or “non-return valve”). Furthermore, umbrella type check valves are known in the art.
Redmond US-4904236 teaches in Figs. 1-10 (see at least Figs. 4, 6 and 9-10) an umbrella-type check valve assembly comprising at least a valve body 30/62/130 with a valve seat 36/67/147 and an elastomeric valve member 20/68/120 having at least a stem portion 22/70/122 (and in the case of Figs. 9-10, a second stem portion 152) and a resiliently movable valve portion 24/68/124, wherein the elastomeric valve member 20/68/120 is secured to the valve body 30/62/130 via the stem portion 22/70/122 and the resiliently movable valve portion 24/68/124 resiliently engages the valve seat 36/67/147, with stem portion and movable valve portion forming an umbrella with the valve portion capable of resiliently flexing (hence their name). When fluid flows from an inlet direction to the outlet direction the movable valve portion flexes to allow fluid flow and when there is no pressure or fluid flow in the opposite direction, the movable portion is biased closed by its resiliency to maintain the valve in the closed position preventing fluid flow in the opposite direction.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time that the invention was effectively filed to modify the type of check valve used in the device of Alvarez to be any suitable type of check valve such as umbrella type check valves similar to those as taught by Redmond since such check valves are functional equivalents that achieve the same function of allowing fluid flow in one direction and preventing fluid flow in the opposite direction that would allow the device of Alvarez to function in the same manner.
As such, the device of the combination of Alvarez US-20180154055 in view of Redmond US-4904236 teaches the limitations of:
---Claim 8. The valve apparatus of claim 2, further comprising an umbrella valve (see the duckbill valve 206 of Alvarez which is modified to be an umbrella type valve 20/68/120 similar to those as taught by Redmond) configured in the cylindrical portion.
---Claim 9. The valve apparatus of claim 2, further comprising a double tailed umbrella valve (see the duckbill valve 206 of Alvarez which is modified to be a double-tailed umbrella type valve 120 similar to those as taught by Redmond) configured in the cylindrical portion.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 11 recites the following:
---Claim 11. The valve apparatus of claim 1, wherein the valve portion includes an opening defining an air path that when occluded facilitates detection of a container assembly.
The closest prior art are:
---References A (Breast pump systems): Guthrie US-11324864, Alvarez US-20180154055, Markower US-9539377, Quakenbush US-8070715, Nuesch US-6270474, Barbez US-20180008758, Vogelin US-20070179439 and Ochiai WO-2019004093.
---References B (Valves with leashes): Miller US-4060100, Vickers US-D33681-S, Sokol US-9630829, Nguyen US-9618130, Nini US-9604836, Wharton US-9151398, Ellenkamp-Van Olst US-8640928, Willis US-8579870, Norris US-7731066, Jackel US-7681750, Odenkirchen US-7320597, Stull US-7152763, Willis US-6767340, Dikeman US-6419670, Picha US-6019746, Lepage US-20130161327 and Huang US-20050109398.
---References B (Other relevant details): Heberling US-11242122, Iwatschenko US-10737088, Lee US-9618131, Taga US-8616240, Arnalsteen US-8485215, Tekulve US-7921874, Paul US-7533696, Fujii US-6851448, Kawolics US-6644510, Rosseel US-6283147, Boelkins US-6062248, Davis US-6044859, Szpara US-5924452, Israelson US-5507318, Sutherland US-5401255, Brystrom US-5373972, Atkinson US-5261459, Bonde US-5067449, Redmond US-4904236, Siposs US-4758224, Grise US-3422844, Pynchon US-3403696 and Kuribayashi US-20160084391.
References A teaches of various examples breast pump assemblies including some form of check valve assembly to allow the pumping operation to occur similar to applicant’s general invention. Among these references, notice that Alvarez US-20180154055 teaches of a check valve assembly comprising a valve portion having a leash/tether hoop/ring that allows the valve to be replaceably attached to the breast pump system with similar structure and function as applicant’s main invention (see the rejections above). References B teaches of other examples of valves/plugs including some form of leash/tether/lanyard similar to applicant’s general invention. References C teaches various minor features of the claimed invention such as the specific structure of duckbill check valves and umbrella-type check valves among other details relevant to the claimed invention. Notice that while the closest prior art teaches some of the features of the claimed invention, the closest prior art fails to disclose or render obvious the particular structure of the valve apparatus 100 for the breast pump system 210 having the valve portion 102, the leash portion 104 extending from the valve portion, wherein the valve portion includes an opening 354 defining an air path that when occluded facilitates detection of a container assembly in combination with all the limitations as claimed in claim 11 and as shown in at least Figs. 1A and 9F of the application.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID COLON-MORALES, whose telephone number 571-270-1741 and fax number is 571-270-2741. If the applicant has authorized internet communications via the filling of form PTO/SB/439, the examiner can be reached via email at david.colon-morales@uspto.gov , email communication is not permitted if the applicant has not filed an authorization for internet communication (see MPEP 502.03 for more details on internet communications). The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (7:30AM-3:30PM 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 supervisors can be reached by phone. KENNETH RINEHART can be reached at 571-272-4881 or CRAIG SCHNEIDER can be reached at 571-272-3607. 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.
/DAVID COLON-MORALES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753