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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant has amended claims 1 and 16-17 which were previously objected to; Examiner accordingly withdraws the previous objections to claims 1 and 16-17.
Claim 3 has been cancelled. No new matter has been introduced. Claims 1-2 and 4-17 remain pending.
The previous objection to the Specification is withdrawn.
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 4-6 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.
Claims 4-6 are indefinite where they are unclear due to their recitations of the limitation "the switch for activation the time delay". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Amended claim 1 does not explicitly require that the switch is configured for activating the time delay, and thus while the referred to switch of claims 4-6 is understood to be the same switch as the switch of amended claim, the language of either claims 1 or 4-6 should be amended to clarify the relationship between the switches. For the purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner has understood the switch of claims 4-6 to be the switch for activating the acoustic signal. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The claim limitation “wherein a means is present for prematurely terminating an activated time delay such that the pump assembly is activated by the control unit” of claim 13 is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as it uses a generic placeholder (“means”), is described by functional language (“for prematurely terminating an activated time delay”), and does not recite any further structure. Thus, the limitation is interpreted to require the presence of a switch, button, screen, voice control module, lever, slide, or other equivalent means which functionally allow for a user input to be entered into the breastpump.
Additionally, the claim limitation “means adapted to allow the mother to select the duration of the time delay at the start” of claim 17 is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as it uses a generic placeholder (“means”), is described by functional language (“adapted to allow the mother to select the duration of the time delay”), and does not recite any further structure. Thus, the limitation is interpreted to require the presence of a switch, button, screen, voice control module, lever, slide, or other equivalent means which functionally allow for a user input to be entered into the breastpump.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 6, 9-10, 12, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pirzada et al. (US 20150112298, henceforth Pirzada).
Regarding claim 1, Pirzada discloses an electrically operated breastpump (pump 1, fig. 1) for expressing human breast milk ([0002] and [0020]) from the breasts of a mother ([0002] and [0020], the disclosed breasts are understood to be the breasts of a mother as in [0047]) having an electric pump assembly (motor 60, fig. 3) and an electronic control unit (microprocessor 50, fig. 3) for controlling the pump assembly ([0025]), wherein the pump assembly can be activated in a time-delayed manner ([0034]) before starting expressing the breastmilk (see [0034]-[0037], the user activates the time delay where they select/create the preset settings for a program and initiate the program, at which point they can leave the machine until it automatically initiates pumping at the specified time, or after the set time delay; since there is no intervening step required between the setting of the program, which is the activation of the claimed time delay, and the automatic initiation of pumping as disclosed) by means of the control unit (see [0033]-[0034]) such that the breast pump can be started by the mother (see [0034], the user of the device can be the mother) activating a time delay ([0034]) such that after expiration of a predetermined period of time (the predetermined period of time is the amount of time from when the mother activates Shabbat mode to when the expression of breastmilk is scheduled to occur; this is a period of time which is predetermined relative to the expression of breastmilk, see [0033]-[0036]) corresponding to the time delay from starting of the pump assembly (the predetermined period of time is the time delay since it is the same period of time between the setting of Shabbat mode and the starting of the pumping for expression of breastmilk), the expression of the breastmilk automatically begins without further action by the mother (see [0037], the machine automatically initiates once in Shabbat mode without further intervention), permitting application of the breastpump to the mother’s breasts after switching on the pump assembly during the time delay and before the pump assembly begins expression of the breastmilk (this is understood to be true in view of [0033]-[0039] where it is disclosed that the mother can set the device into Shabbat mode, leave it and use it without pressing any buttons according to the user-programmed Shabbat schedule, and then the device can be left to count down and the mother’s breasts can be inserted into the device when it is meant to be used while the clock is counting down but before the expression of milk has been activated), and comprising a switch (keypad 4, fig. 1) in communication with the electronic control unit of the breastpump (see fig. 3, keypad 4 communicates with microprocessor 50 as shown), the electronic control unit being configured to activate an acoustic signal (see [0024], controller 50 causes a buzzing or beeping from buzzer 54 which is an acoustic signal) upon actuation of the switch (see [0024], the alarm goes off when the device switches phases, which would happens during Shabbat mode as controlled by keypad 4 as in [0037]) for a duration (the length of time that the buzzing of [0024] extends for is the claimed duration) corresponding to an instruction to the electronic control unit to initiate operation of the breastpump in the time-delayed manner rather than immediately (since the beeping occurs during the changing of phases as in [0024], and since such a phase change occurs in Shabbat mode which is an instruction from microprocessor 50 to initiate the given phase in the time-delayed manner, the beeping corresponds to the instruction from controller 50 as claimed).
Regarding claim 2, Pirzada discloses the breastpump wherein the time delay can be activated or deactivated by the mother ([0034]).
Regarding claim 4, Pirzada discloses the breastpump wherein the breast pump has a start switch for activating the pump assembly (keypad 4, fig. 3) and wherein the switch for activating the time delay is the switch for activating the pump assembly (see [0034] and [0035], keypad 4 is used for both functions).
Regarding claim 6, Pirzada discloses the breastpump wherein the pump assembly and the control unit are arranged in a pump housing (cover 2, fig. 1) and wherein the switch for activating the time delay is arranged on or in the pump housing (see fig. 1, keypad 4 is arranged on cover 2 as shown).
Regarding claim 9, Pirzada discloses the breastpump wherein a display unit is present (see figs. 1 and 3, the claimed display unit is made up of front cover 5, electronic screen component 52, and buzzer 54), which, during the time delay, issues a signal which can be perceived by the mother (“breastfeeding events can be listed on display 5 during the Shabbat period of time so that the user, without pressing any buttons, can read and review the schedule for using the device 1”, [0038]).
Regarding claim 10, Pirzada discloses the breastpump wherein an optical display unit is present (see fig. 1, the claimed optical display unit is made up of front cover 5, electronic screen component 52, and buzzer 54 of [0024]), which, during the time delay, gives an indication as to when the pump assembly will start (“breastfeeding events can be listed on display 5 during the Shabbat period of time so that the user, without pressing any buttons, can read and review the schedule for using the device 1”, [0038]).
Regarding claim 12, Pirzada discloses the breastpump wherein the display unit issues the acoustic signal ([0024]).
Regarding claim 15, Pirzada discloses the breastpump wherein a duration of the time delay can be selected by the mother ([0034]).
Regarding claim 16, Pirzada discloses the breastpump wherein the duration of the time delay is stored in the control unit as a predetermined time value (see [0034]-[0036], step 25 includes the controller starting a clock or a timer – at this moment, the controller would then be storing the amount of time that the time delay will last, or the duration of the time delay as claimed, as a time value which is predetermined relative to the starting of breastmilk expression).
Regarding claim 17, Pirzada discloses the breastpump further comprising means adapted to allow the mother to select the duration of the time delay at the start (see [0034]-[0036], the user, or the mother, must press a menu button to select the desired mode for pumping which then sets the duration of the time delay after which the pumping can proceed; a menu button is an art effective means for a user inputting information into a system, see the Claim Interpretation section above with regards to claim 17; also note that [0038] discloses that the system and process can “result in a pre-programmable breastfeeding pump, which creates a preset time for initialization and a preset schedule of a series of events for breastfeeding over a period of time such as over a 24 hour or 30 hour period of time ”).
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.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pirzada et al. (US 20150112298, henceforth Pirzada).
Regarding claim 5, Pirzada discloses the breastpump further comprising a start switch for activating the pump assembly (keypad 4, fig. 1, [0034]) and the switch for activating the time delay (keypad 4, fig. 1, [0034]).
Pirzada does not disclose the breast pump wherein the switch for activating the time delay is a different switch from the start switch for activating the pump assembly.
It has been held that a mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (MPEP 2144.04 VI. B.) (In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Pirzada to have made a separate start switch for activating the pump assembly which is a different switch from the switch for activating the time delay as this would have yielded the same, predictable result of both of those operations (the starting of the pump assembly and the activation of the time delay) being achieved through the use of switches. Doing so would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pirzada et al. (US 20150112298, henceforth Pirzada) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Simmons et al. (US 20160287767, henceforth Simmons).
Regarding claim 7, Pirzada discloses the breastpump wherein the breast pump has a speech recognition module (microphone 56, see [0024], the microphone can be used to read audio statements from a user and is thus a speech recognition module). Additionally, Pirzada discloses a switch using buttons (keypad 4, fig. 1, [0034]) for activating the time delay via the mother ([0034]).
Pirzada does not teach the use of the speech recognition module for activating the time delay via the mother, or what the speech recognition module is used for. Simmons teaches that voice recognition modules ([0031], voice recognition technology) and buttons (button or user interface 109, [0031]) can be used interchangeably in breast pump devices to achieve the same functionality ([0031]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the voice recognition module in place of the buttons of Pirzada for the activation of the time delay via the mother as Simmons teaches that a voice recognition module can be used to functionally replace buttons and because such a modification would have yielded the same, predictable result of the time delay being activated by the mother.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pirzada et al. (US 20150112298, henceforth Pirzada) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Simmons et al. (US 20160287767, henceforth Simmons) and Thommen (US 20080021380, henceforth Thommen).
Regarding claim 8, Pirzada discloses the breastpump wherein there is a switch (keypad 4, fig. 1) connected to the control unit (see fig. 1, keypad 4 is mounted into housing 2 which houses the control unit as in [0017]) for the purpose of activating the time delay ([0034]).
Pirzada does not disclose that the breast pump has at least one breast shield for applying to at least one of the mother’s breasts and wherein the breast shield has a switch connected to the control unit for the purpose of activating the time delay. Simmons teaches a breast pump (breastpump system 210, fig. 2) having at least one breast shield (breastshields 207, 208, fig. 2) for applying to a human breast (see [0049], [0096], [0111], and see fig. 6) and having a control unit (see [0056]-[0059]; while this controller is described for the embodiment of fig. 1, it is understood to apply to the embodiment of fig. 2 as well since fig. 2 just shows a more detailed schematic of the expression device as taught in [0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the breast shield of Simmons to the breast pump of Pirzada for attaching the breastpump to at least one of the mother’s breasts such as to be able to express human breast milk, to allow for different breast shapes and sizes to be used with the breastpump ([0049]), and to allow for increased efficiency ([0111]). Such a modification could entail attaching the breast shields of Simmons (207 and 208, fig. 2) and their associated containers (203 and 204, respectively, fig. 2) and tubing connections (214 and 213, respectively, fig. 2) to the breastpump of Pirzada such as at port (3, fig. 1) of Pirzada which is meant to be attached to tubing (Pirzada [0017]).
The modified device of device of Pirzada and Simmons does not explicitly disclose that the breast shield (breastshields 207 and 208, Simmons fig. 2) has the switch (keypad 4, fig. 1 and [0034]). Thommen teaches that breast shields (breastshield 1, fig. 1) can have switches on them (operating panel 5, fig. 1, which can have switches as in [0035]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have moved the switch used for the purpose of activating the time delay from the breastpump housing (housing 2, fig. 1) as in Pirzada as modified by Simmons to the breast shield as in Thommen (see fig. 1) for the benefit of easier control of the device by allowing the switch to be reached by the same hand with which the mother is holding the breastshield to her breast as in Thommen ([0033]).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pirzada et al. (US 20150112298, henceforth Pirzada) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Blomquist (US 20030163223, henceforth Blomquist).
Regarding claim 11, Pirzada does not disclose the breastpump wherein the optical display unit shows a changing clock or a changing bar or a decreasing numerical increment. Blomquist teaches a pump (pump 100, fig. 1) comprising an optical display unit (screen 106, figs. 1 and 2) showing a decreasing numerical increment (see countdown timer of [0158] and [0176], also see banner 404 in fig. 19) during a delay period (predetermined time of [0176]) prior to a changing of pump state (see [0177], the pump is activated at the end of the predetermined time).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the optical display unit of Pirzada to show a decreasing numerical increment during a delay period prior to changing of a pump state as in Blomquist ([0176], [0177]) for providing notification to the user as to how much time is remaining in the delay period ([0158], [0176]).
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pirzada et al. (US 20150112298, henceforth Pirzada) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dobrusskin et al. (US 20210244865, henceforth Dobrusskin).
Regarding claim 13, Pirzada discloses the breastpump wherein there is an activated time delay (see [0034], the time delay as in claim 1 is the same time delay in the present claim, however it has now been activated by the mother making it the claimed activated time delay) and wherein the pump assembly is activated by the control unit ([0034], [0037]).
Pirzada does not disclose the breastpump wherein a means is present for prematurely terminating the activated time delay such that the pump assembly is activated by the control unit. Dobrusskin teaches a pump (breast pump device 100, fig. 1) comprising a means for prematurely terminating an activated time delay (see [0056], “If after a predetermined period of time the breast detector has not detected a breast in the breast receiving portion 130, then the controller can still initiate the second operating mode. Alternatively, the controller 110 may initiate the second operating mode based on an input of the user or based on an external signal even if no breast has been detected.” – the predetermined period of time is the activated time delay, and this can instead be prematurely terminated through a user input as taught; this is done through some input means) such that a pump assembly (vacuum source 120, see Abstract) is activated by a control unit (controller 110 which controls vacuum source 120, see Abstract and [0056]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added a means for prematurely terminating the activated time delay of Pirzada as in Dobrusskin such that the pump assembly is activated by the control unit for giving the user additional control over the device and allowing for an override of the time delay as desired (this is what occurs in Dobrusskin [0056]).
Regarding claim 14, Pirzada as modified by Dobrusskin discloses that the means for prematurely terminating the time delay is done through a user input (see rejection of claim 13 above).
Pirzada as modified does not explicitly disclose the breastpump wherein the means is a switch. However, Pirzada teaches that its user inputs are done through switches (keypad 4, fig. 1 and see [0018], [0026], [0035]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the switches of Pirzada for the means of terminating the time delay since the switches of Pirzada are the means for providing user inputs in the device of Pirzada as modified by Dobrusskin (see Pirzada [0018]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/19/2025 regarding the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) in view of Pirzada et al. (US 20150112298, henceforth Pirzada) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has argued that the present amendments overcome Pirzada. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim does not specify the time at which the acoustic signal is meant to occur at, only that the signal activates upon actuation of a switch for a duration corresponding to an instruction to the control unit to initiate operation of the breastpump in the time-delayed manner. Since the buzzer of Pirzada is disclosed to buzz during the changing of phases, the changing of phases occurs during activation in Shabbat mode, and the keypad is used to set the device in Shabbat mode (which is the time delayed manner), Pirzada discloses the switch configured for activating the acoustic signal as claimed.
Thus, Examiner respectfully finds Applicant’s arguments unpersuasive and rejects the claims as indicated in the rejections above.
Conclusion
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 SAMUEL J MARRISON whose telephone number is (703)756-1927. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00a-5:00p ET.
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 on (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.
/SAMUEL J MARRISON/Examiner, Art Unit 3783 /EMILY L SCHMIDT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783
Prosecution Insights