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 § 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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second 5. 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 1 Line 5 reads "a flexible body defining an outer perimeter of the flexible body." It is unclear how a structure can define an outer perimeter of itself. Examiner will interpret this limitation in reference to PGPub paragraph 0068 reading "an outer perimeter 208 defining the terminal edge of the body 202." Claims 2-9 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on Claim 1. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phillips et al. (USPGPub 2016/0296682) in view of Morrissey et al. (USPN 5,732,714).
Re Claim 1, Phillips teaches a leak guard (6) for use with a breast pump suction flange (200) having a liquid extraction port (12) through which liquid from a wearer's breast flows when the breast pump suction flange (200) is worn by a wearer (Phillips Figs. 2-3; ¶ 0076, 0082) the leak guard (6) comprising: an outer perimeter (4) defining a terminal edge of a flexible body
(2) (Phillips ¶ 0051), the flexible body (2) being configured to contact an exterior of the breast pump suction flange (200) and substantially conform to an exterior contour thereof when worn (Phillips ¶ 0082). However, Phillips fails to teach the leak guard comprising a liquid collection region defined by the flexible body within the outer perimeter, the liquid collection region being positioned beneath a bottom perimeter of the breast pump suction flange when the flexible body is worn to collect liquid leakage from the bottom perimeter.
Morrissey teaches a leak guard (1) (Morrissey Fig. 1) comprising a liquid collection region (9) defined by a flexible body within an outer perimeter (Morrissey Col. 3 Lines 45-53), the liquid collection region (9) being positioned beneath a bottom perimeter of the breast flange (2) when the flexible body is worn to collect liquid leakage from the bottom perimeter for preventing leaking of a lactating mother (Morrissey Col. 4 Lines 12-17). 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 configured the leak guard pf Phillips to comprise a liquid collection region defined by the flexible body within the outer perimeter, the liquid collection region being positioned beneath a bottom perimeter of the breast pump suction flange when the flexible body is worn to collect liquid leakage from the bottom perimeter as disclosed by Morrissey for preventing leaking of a lactating mother (Morrissey Col. 4 Lines 12-17).
Re Claim 2, Phillips in view of Morrissey teach all of the limitations of Claim 1. Phillips further teaches wherein the outer perimeter (4) includes adhesive (Phillips ¶ 0093).
Re Claim 3, Phillips in view of Morrissey teach all of the limitations of Claim 1. Phillips fails to teach wherein the flexible body includes a liquid absorbent material capable of absorbing the liquid leakage. Morrisey teaches the flexible includes a liquid absorbent material capable of absorbing the liquid leakage for preventing leaking of a lactating mother (Morrissey Col. 4 Lines 12-17). 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 configured the flexible body of Phillips in view of Morrissey to comprise a liquid absorbent material capable of absorbing the liquid leakage for preventing leaking of a lactating mother (Morrissey Col. 4 Lines 12-17).
Re Claim 4, Phillips in view of Morrissey teach all of the limitations of Claim 1. Phillips further teaches an adhesive on the flexible body (2) beneath the liquid collection region (10) for adhering the flexible body (2) to skin of the wearer (Phillips ¶ 0093).
Re Claim 5, Phillips in view of Morrissey teach all of the limitations of Claim 1. Phillips teaches wherein the flexible body (2) includes a liquid impermeable material in the liquid collection region (10) (Phillips ¶ 0074).
Re Claim 6, Phillips in view of Morrissey teach all of the limitations of Claim 1. Phillips further teaches wherein the flexible body (2) includes a liquid impermeable material that contacts the exterior of the breast pump suction flange (200) when the leak guard (6) is worn
(Phillips ¶ 0074).
Re Claim 7, Phillips in view of Morrissey teach all of the limitations of Claim 1. Phillips teaches wherein the flexible body (2) emulates a disk shape (as seen in Phillips Fig. 4).
Re Claim 9, Phillips in view of Morrissey teach all of the limitations of Claim 1. Phillips teaches wherein: the flexible body (2) includes a liquid extraction port receiving member (8) that permits the liquid extraction port (12) to extend therethrough (Phillips Fig. 2); the flexible body (2) includes a liquid impermeable material in the liquid collection region (10) (Phillips ¶ 0074). However, Phillips fails to teach the flexible body includes a liquid absorbent material capable of absorbing the liquid leakage. Morrissey teaches the flexible body includes a liquid absorbent material capable of absorbing the liquid leakage for preventing leaking of a lactating mother (Morrissey Col. 4 Lines 12-17). 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 configured the flexible body of Phillips in view of Morrissey to comprise a liquid absorbent material capable of absorbing the liquid leakage as disclosed by Morrissey for preventing leaking of a lactating mother (Morrissey Col. 4 Lines 12-17).
Re Claim 9, Phillips in view of Morrissey teach all of the limitations of Claim 1. Phillips further teaches a breast pump (130) and the breast pump suction flange (200) (as seen in Phillips Fig. 1; ¶ 0076, 0082).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 12/10/2025 with respect to 112 indefinite rejection of Claim 9 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Due to clarifying amendment, the 112 indefinite rejection of Claim 9 is hereinafter withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On Page 10 of the response, under the 112 header, applicant argues Figs. 2-4 support "a flexible body defining an outer perimeter of the flexible body." Examiner disagrees. The flexible body comprises an outer perimeter defining a terminal edge of the flexible body, as described in applicant’s specification at paragraph 0068. Applicant’s arguments move to 103 rejections on Page 11 of the response. There, applicant argues the rationale for modifying Phillips via the teachings of Morrissey “is not clear.” However, instead of discussing the rationale for the Phillips in view of Morrissey rejection, applicant maps the structures of prior art Phillipps. The examiner does not interpret the prior art as such, applicant must respond to the prior art as examiner has interpreted it, not as how applicant would have interpreted it.
At the bottom of Page 13 of the response, applicant argues Philipps fails to teach “the flexible body being configured to contact an exterior of the breast pump suction flange and substantially conform to an exterior contour thereof when worn.” However, this limitation is explicitly taught in Philipps paragraph 0082 wherein “breast pump shield 200 may include a concave interior surface (e.g., interior portion 6), a convex exterior surface (e.g., exterior portion 2), and a connecting surface (e.g., middle portion 4) that connects the concave interior surface with the convex exterior surface.”
On Page 14 of the response, applicant argues secondary reference Morrissey fails to teach “the leak guard comprising a liquid collection region defined by the flexible body within the outer perimeter, the liquid collection region being positioned beneath a bottom perimeter of the breast pump suction flange when the flexible body is worn to collect liquid leakage from the bottom perimeter.” In support of this contention, applicant argues Morrisey does not teach a breast flange. However, Morrissey teaches a support shaped to conform to a breast. Next applicant argues liquid collection region of Morrissey is element 9. However, element 3 is below a center of element 2 in Morrissey, which is the same manner in which applicant interprets the limitation in the figures of the present case. On Page 16 of the response, applicant argues that examiner is proposing to depress the nipple. However, examiner has not proposed modifying Philipps breast flange, merely adding absorbent material to prevent leaking. Finally, applicant argues examiner has left applicant to speculate. However, it is unclear as to what applicant is left to speculate.
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 WILLIAM R FREHE whose telephone number is (571)272-8225. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30AM-7:30PM.
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.
/WILLIAM R FREHE/Examiner, Art Unit 3783
/MICHAEL J TSAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3783