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
The Amendments filed 02/05/2026 have been entered.
Claims 1, 3, 8, 18 and 20 have thereby been amended.
Claim 7 has been cancelled.
Claims 1-6 and 8-20 are being examined in this office action.
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.
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.
Claims 1-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Pfenniger (US 20160224611) in view Prentice (US 20150265753) in further view of Haas (EP 2916249) and in further view of Makower (WO 2017139437).
Regarding claim 1, Pfenniger discloses a system for improving a breast pumping session comprising: a database (1, 2) having at least one data group (10, 20), wherein the database is configured to send and receive group data (arrows 40, 41, 50, 51) regarding a pumping pattern (page 3, para. [0032]); a data processing unit (3) configured to analyze pumping data regarding the breast pumping session (page. 3, para. [0042]) for the optimization of parameters for a user’s breast pumping sessions. Although Pfenniger discloses this system used in communication with a breast pump and delivering recommendations to the user (page 3, paras. [0032]-[0033]), Pfenniger fails to explicitly disclose the user implementing additional real-time changes during the breast pumping session, a computing device with a user interface and the automated real-time changes to the pumping based on user feedback.
Prentice teaches an analogous breast pump system the breast pump system is configured to implement real-time changes to the breast pumping session based on the user feedback received (para. [0027], sentence 2, the system implements real time changes to the suction of the pump based off the user input), wherein the user implements additional real-time changes during the breast pumping session (para. [0027], sentence 4, the system implements real time changes to the speed of the pump cycles based off the user input). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Pfenniger method and device by incorporating the real-time user changes to the pumping as taught by Prentice, in order to be able to make real-time adjustments to optimize the user’s comfort, without having to wait for those changes to be implemented in the next pumping session. However, the Pfenniger-Prentice system fails to teach the computing device with a user interface and the automated real-time changes to the pumping based on user feedback, or that the changes are made and updated via an application.
Haas teaches an analogous system for the optimization of breast pumping that includes the data processing unit (3, according to the system of Haas) being communicably coupled to a computing device (21: page 8 of translation, line 11 reciting a smartphone), the computing device having a user interface (screen on smartphone 21 for app interaction: page 5 of translation, lines 6-7); a breast pump system (80, 82, 83) communicably coupled to the data processing unit (Fig. 1, dashed lines demonstrating data communication between 80 and 3); wherein the computing device is configured to request and receive feedback from a user of the breast pump system during the breast pumping session via the user interface (page 9 of translation, para. 9 regarding Fig. 11b; and page 10 of translation, para. 2 regarding Fig. 13). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Pfenniger system by incorporating the breast pump and computing devices of the system taught by Haas (combination illustrated in annotated Fig. 1 below), in order to provide a user interface between the transmission of data between the pump system and the data platform system so the user may see and track the session data and elect to implement changes for optimization (page 9 of translation, second-to-last paragraph, last sentence). However, although Pfenniger teaches the integration of an application for the data processing and optimization (para. [0026], sentence 1), the Pfenniger-Prentice-Haas system fails still to explicitly teach that the real-time changes made by the user is done via an application.
Makower teaches an analogous system for the optimization of breast pumping for a user, and explicitly teaches that the breast pump system is configured to implement real-time changes to the breast pumping session based on the user feedback received (pages 15-16, para. [0084], sentences 1-3) via an application wherein the application is configured to facilitate user interaction with the system to detect or receive data relating to the real-time changes or the additional real-time changes during the breast pumping session (para. [00131]). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Pfenniger-Prentice-Haas system by incorporating this real-time change implementation via the application taught by Makower in order to better optimize pumping for milk extraction success while in-use and integrate those changes with the application software of the Pfenniger system. It directly follows that upon this combination the application taught by Makower would operably connect to the system taught by Pfenniger to provide updates (Makower: Figs. 33-37, updates to the user such as the amount of remaining time, volume, or successful suction level) to the user from the database.
PNG
media_image1.png
650
1068
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1:
Combination of the Pfenniger database/data analysis system with the Haas devices and interface
Regarding claim 2, Pfenniger in view of Prentice in further view of Haas in further view of Makower teaches the system of claim 1, as descried above, wherein the breast pumping system comprises a sensing device configured to receive pumping data from the user and to communicate with the data processing unit (Pfenniger: page 3, para. [0042], sentence 1).
Regarding claim 3, Pfenniger in view of Prentice in further view of Haas in further view of Makower teaches the system of claim 2, as descried above, wherein the application (Makower: para. [00131]) is associated with the system (Pfenniger: para. [0026], sentence 1), and wherein the application continuously or intermittently determines whether an action should be taken by the user and wherein the action comprises modifying settings of the breast pump system (Haas: page 9 of translation, second-to-last paragraph).
Regarding claim 4, Pfenniger in view of Prentice in further view of Haas in further view of Makower teaches the system of claim 1, as descried above, wherein the data processing unit is configured to cause the database to update the group data based on the analysis of the pumping data (Pfenniger: page 2, para. [0014], sentences 4-6).
Regarding claim 5, Pfenniger in view of Prentice in further view of Haas in further view of Makower teaches the system of claim 1, as descried above, wherein the data processing unit is configured to provide automatic updates to the breast pump system before or during the pumping session (Makower: pages 15-16, para. [0084], sentences 1-3).
Regarding claim 6, Pfenniger in view of Prentice in further view of Haas in further view of Makower teaches the system of claim 1, as descried above, wherein the group data is continuously updated by the data processing unit based on the user feedback (Pfenniger: page 2, para. [0014], sentences 4-6).
Regarding claim 8, Pfenniger in view of Prentice in further view of Haas in further view of Makower teaches the system of claim 1, as descried above, wherein the application is stored on the computing device (Haas: app on 21, page 5 of translation, lines 6-7), wherein the application continuously or intermittently determines whether an action should be taken by the user and wherein the action comprises modifying settings of the breast pump system (Haas: page 9 of translation, second-to-last paragraph).
Regarding claim 9, Pfenniger in view of Prentice in further view of Haas in further view of Makower teaches the system of claim 1, as descried above, wherein the data processing unit sends a signal to the breast pump system to stop the breast pump system (Makower: pages 15-16, para. [0084], sentences 1-3; stopping explicitly integrated into forementioned real-time updates, page 40, para. [00131], last sentence), wherein the signal is sent through an application (see Annotated Fig. 1 above, wherein application on 21 is intermediate to the data processing unit and the breast pump system).
Regarding claim 10, Pfenniger in view of Prentice in further view of Haas in further view of Makower teaches the system of claim 1, as descried above, wherein the data processing unit generates predictive capabilities based on analysis of the pumping data (Makower: page 6, para. [0027], last sentence). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated into the Pfenniger-Haas-Makower system, the teachings of the predictive pumping actions taught by Makower, in order to achieve the real-time pumping optimization (Makower: pages 15-16, para. [0084], sentences 1-3).
Regarding claim 11, Pfenniger in view of Prentice in further view of Haas in further view of Makower teaches the system of claim 1, as descried above, wherein the data processing unit analyzes historical data of the user to predict results of the breast pumping session (Pfenniger: page 2, para. [0015], sentence 5). Although Pfenniger does not explicitly disclose this existing data as historical data of the user, Makower does (pages 37-38, para. [00125], sentences 9-13), and it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the historical data as defined by Makower into the predictive data system of Pfenniger, upon the Pfenniger-Haas-Makower combination, to achieve the user-specific, real-time pumping optimization (Makower: pages 15-16, para. [0084], sentences 1-3).
Regarding claim 12, Pfenniger in view of Prentice in further view of Haas in further view of Makower teaches the system of claim 1, as descried above, wherein the data processing unit provides recommended settings for the breast pump system to the user based on the analysis of the pumping data (Haas: page 9 of translation, second-to-last paragraph).
Regarding claim 13, Pfenniger in view of Prentice in further view of Haas in further view of Makower teaches the system of claim 1, as descried above, wherein the breast pump system comprises a breastshield (Haas: breast cap, 81) having a portion within which a woman's breast is received for the expression of milk (Haas page 9 of translation: second paragraph regarding Fig. 7, sentence 2).
Regarding claim 14, Pfenniger in view of Prentice in further view of Haas in further view of Makower teaches the system of claim 13, as descried above, wherein the breast pump system further comprises a sensing device configured to receive pumping data from the user and transmit the pumping data to the data processing unit and wherein the sensing device is located on or in communication with the breastshield (Haas page 9 of translation: second paragraph regarding Fig. 7, sentences 4-5).
Regarding claim 15, Pfenniger in view of Prentice in further view of Haas in further view of Makower teaches the system of claim 14, as descried above, wherein the breast pump system further comprises a controller configured to execute the pumping pattern for the breast pumping session (Makower: 52; page 11, para. [0074], sentence 1), wherein the controller is further configured to send pumping data to a data processing unit for analysis (Makower: page 32, para. [00116], sentences 1-3 and 5-6).
Regarding claim 16, Pfenniger in view of Prentice in further view of Haas in further view of Makower teaches the system of claim 15, as descried above, wherein the breast pump system comprises a breast pump housing within which the source of pressure (Makower: compression member) and the controller are positioned (Makower: page 6, para. [0028], lines 1-7). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated into the Pfenniger-Haas-Makower system, the teachings of the controller and pressure source being positioned in the housing of the breast pump system, as taught by Makower, in order to achieve the real-time pumping optimization (Makower: pages 15-16, para. [0084], sentences 1-3).
Regarding claim 17, Pfenniger in view of Prentice in further view of Haas in further view of Makower teaches the system of claim 16, as descried above, wherein the breast pump system further comprises a collection container (Haas: 82, Fig. 6) releasably secured to the breastshield (Haas: 81, Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 20, Pfenniger discloses a system for improving a breast pumping session comprising: a database (1, 2) having a plurality of data groups (10, 20), wherein each data group of the plurality of data groups has a corresponding pumping pattern (page 3, para. [0044], sentences 1-3); a data processing unit (3), the data processing unit being configured to analyze pumping data regarding the breast pumping session (page. 3, para. [0042], sentence 1), identify a data group corresponding the pumping data and transmit the pumping pattern corresponding to the identified data group during the breast pumping session (page 4, Example 4 implementation: paras. [0055] and [0057]); a breast pump system communicably coupled to the data processing unit (page. 3, para. [0042], sentences 1-2). However, Pfenniger fails to explicitly disclose the user implementing additional real-time changes during the breast pumping session, and a computing device with a user interface and the real-time changes to the pumping based on user feedback.
Prentice teaches an analogous breast pump system wherein the user implements additional real-time changes during the breast pumping session (para. [0027], particularly sentence 1, screen 400 on input device 500). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Pfenniger method and device by incorporating the real-time user changes to the pumping as taught by Prentice, in order to be able to make real-time adjustments to optimize the user’s comfort, without having to wait for those changes to be implemented in the next pumping session. However, the Pfenniger-Prentice system fails to teach the computing device with a user interface and the automated real-time changes to the pumping based on user feedback.
Haas teaches an analogous system for the optimization of breast pumping that includes the data processing unit (3, according to the system of Haas) being communicably coupled a computing device (21: page 8 of translation, line 11 reciting a smartphone), the computing device having a user interface (screen on smartphone 21 for app interaction: page 5 of translation, lines 6-7), wherein the computing device is configured to request and receive feedback from a user of the breast pump system during the breast pumping session via the user interface (page 9 of translation, para. 9 regarding Fig. 11b; and page 10 of translation, para. 2 regarding Fig. 13). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Pfenniger system by incorporating the computing devices of the system taught by Haas, in order to provide a user interface between the transmission of data between the pump system and the data platform system so the user may see and track the session data and elect to implement changes for optimization (page 9 of translation, second-to-last paragraph, last sentence). However, Haas teaches that the pumping sessions are optimized through the optimization of pumping parameters that are later updated/implemented to the pump device (page 9 of translation, second-to-last paragraph). However, although Pfenniger teaches the integration of an application for the data processing and optimization (para. [0026], sentence 1), the Pfenniger-Prentice-Haas system fails still to explicitly teach that the real-time changes made by the user is done via an application.
Makower teaches an analogous system for the optimization of breast pumping for a user, and explicitly teaches that the breast pump system is configured to implement real-time changes to the breast pumping session based on the user feedback received (pages 15-16, para. [0084], sentences 1-3) via an application wherein the application is configured to facilitate user interaction with the system to detect or receive data relating to the real-time changes or the additional real-time changes during the breast pumping session (para. [00131]). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Pfenniger-Prentice-Haas system by incorporating this real-time change implementation via the application taught by Makower in order to better optimize pumping for milk extraction success while in-use and integrate those changes with the application software of the Pfenniger system. It directly follows that upon this combination the application taught by Makower would operably connect to the system taught by Pfenniger to provide updates (Makower: Figs. 33-37, updates to the user such as the amount of remaining time, volume, or successful suction level) to the user from the database.
Claims 18-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Pfenniger (US 20160224611) in view Prentice (US 20150265753).
Regarding claim 18, Pfenniger discloses a method for improving a breast pumping session of a breast pump system, the method comprising: receiving, via a data processing unit (3), pumping data of a user regarding a breast pumping session from the breast pump system (page. 3, para. [0042], sentences 1-2); analyzing, via the data processing unit, the pumping data and comparing the pumping data to group data (page 2, para. [0025], sentence 1); sending, via the data processing unit, a message to the breast pump system based on the analysis of the pumping data and thereby causing implementation of a modification to a mode of operation of the breast pump system during the breast pumping session based on the analysis of the pumping data (page 3, para. [0032] and para. [0033], lines 1-4). However, Pfenniger does not explicitly disclose the user implementing additional real-time changes during the breast pumping session.
Prentice teaches an analogous breast pump system wherein the user implements additional real-time changes during the breast pumping session (para. [0027], particularly sentence 1). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Pfenniger method and device by incorporating the real-time user changes to the pumping as taught by Prentice, in order to be able to make real-time adjustments to optimize the user’s comfort, without having to wait for those changes to be implemented in the next pumping session. However, although Pfenniger teaches the integration of an application for the data processing and optimization (para. [0026], sentence 1), the Pfenniger-Prentice system fails still to explicitly teach that the real-time changes made by the user is done via an application.
Makower teaches an analogous system for the optimization of breast pumping for a user, and explicitly teaches that the breast pump system is configured to implement real-time changes to the breast pumping session based on the user feedback received (pages 15-16, para. [0084], sentences 1-3) via an application wherein the application is configured to facilitate user interaction with the system to detect or receive data relating to the real-time changes or the additional real-time changes during the breast pumping session (para. [00131]). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Pfenniger-Prentice-Haas system by incorporating this real-time change implementation via the application taught by Makower in order to better optimize pumping for milk extraction success while in-use and integrate those changes with the application software of the Pfenniger system. It directly follows that upon this combination the application taught by Makower would operably connect to the system taught by Pfenniger to provide updates (Makower: Figs. 33-37, updates to the user such as the amount of remaining time, volume, or successful suction level) to the user from the database.
Regarding claim 19, Pfenniger in view of Prentice teaches the method of claim 18, as described above, wherein analyzing the pumping data and comparing the pumping data to group data comprises updating the group data based on the analysis of the pumping data (Pfenniger: page 4, Example 4: para. [0058]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that all cited references fail to disclose the claimed application. However, as cited in the rejections above, both Pfenniger and Makower explicitly disclose the use of software applications as claims. As such, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to integrate the teachings of the user input and updates of the Makower application into the application of Pfenniger in relation to the rest of the system.
For these reasons, Examiner maintains the rejections of independent claims 1, 18 and 20, along with their depending claims, as recited above, and that all described combinations would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to integrate with one another, as the cited prior art reflects each aspect of the claimed invention as well as motivation for combining those limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATERINA ANNA WITTLIFF whose telephone number is (703)756-4772. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 9-7ET.
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, MICHAEL TSAI can be reached at 571-270-5246. 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.
/K.A.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3783
/NATHAN R PRICE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783
Prosecution Insights