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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 10 reading “underpressure” should read --an underpressure--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 12 reading “underpressure” should read --an underpressure--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 10 reading “underpressure” should read --an underpressure--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 reading “wherein malfunctioning” should read --the malfunctioning--. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 4-12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Simmons et al. (USPGPub 2016/0296680).
Re Claim 1, Simmons teaches a breast pump device (Simmons Fig. 2), comprising: a fluid pressure arrangement (25, 25') configured to interact with a breast from which milk is to be extracted and to realize a pressure cycle at a position where the fluid pressure arrangement is to face the breast (Simmons ¶ 0051-0052), the pressure cycle involving increase and decrease of a level of underpressure by the fluid pressure arrangement (Simmons ¶ 0052-0054), a controller (28) configured to execute an operation software program for controlling operation of the breast pump device, the operation software program including instructions to cause the fluid pressure arrangement to realize the pressure cycle (Simmons ¶ 0054-0055, 0058), and a monitoring arrangement configured to monitor functioning of the operation software program and to cause release of underpressure in case malfunctioning of the operation software program is detected on the basis of the monitoring arrangement being configured to initiate a reset procedure of the controller in case malfunctioning of the operation software program is detected and the reset procedure of the controller involving an action of causing release of underpressure and/or the operation software program including instructions to initiate a start up procedure of the breast pump device and the start-up procedure of the breast pump device involving an action of causing release of underpressure (Simmons ¶ 0016).
Re Claim 4, Simmons teaches wherein malfunctioning of the operation software program is related to sustained underpressure (Simmons ¶ 0016, 0036, 0047).
Re Claim 5, Simmons teaches wherein the monitoring arrangement comprises a watchdog timer, and wherein the operation software program includes an instruction to reset
the watchdog timer (Simmons " 0015).
Re Claim 6, Simmons teaches wherein the monitoring arrangement is included in the controller (28) (Simmons ¶ 0016, 0052-0055).
Re Claim 7, Simmons teaches the breast pump device (Simmons Fig. 2) further comprising an additional controller (B, B'), wherein the monitoring arrangement is included in
the additional controller (Simmons Fig. 2; ¶ 0042).
Re Claim 9, Simmons teaches wherein the fluid pressure arrangement (25, 25') comprises an air system (20) including an air inlet in communication with a position where the fluid pressure arrangement (25, 25') is to face the breast (Simmons ¶ 0051; Fig. 2), and a pump/valve arrangement (22) configured to suck the air from the air system (20) and to let in air to the air system (20), and wherein the monitoring arrangement is configured to cause the pump/valve arrangement (22) to let in air to the air system in case malfunctioning of the operation software program is detected (Simmons ¶ 0016, 0052-0055).
Re Claim 10, Simmons teaches wherein malfunctioning of the operation software program is related to the pump/valve arrangement continuously sucking air from the air system (20) and/or not letting in air to the air system (20) (Simmons ¶ 0016, 0052-0055).
Re Claim 11, Simmons teaches wherein the fluid pressure arrangement comprises a funnel-shaped breast-receiving shield (24, 24') at a position where the fluid pressure arrangement (25, 25') is to face the breast (Simmons Fig. 2).
Re Claim 12, Simmons teaches a controller arrangement configured for use in a breast pump device that comprises a fluid pressure arrangement configured to interact with a breast from which milk is to be extracted and to realize a pressure cycle at a position where the fluid pressure arrangement is to face the breast, the pressure cycle involving increase and decrease of a level of underpressure by the fluid pressure arrangement, wherein the controller arrangement includes a controller configured to execute an operation software program for controlling operation of the breast pump device, the operation software program including instructions to cause the fluid pressure arrangement of the breast pump device to realize the pressure cycle, and a monitoring arrangement configured to monitor functioning of the operation software program and to cause release of underpressure in case malfunctioning of the operation software program is detected on the basis of the monitoring arrangement being configured to initiate a reset procedure of the controller in case malfunctioning of the operation software program is detected and the reset procedure of the controller involving an action of causing release of underpressure and/or the operation software program including instructions to initiate a start-up procedure of the breast pump device and the start-up procedure of the breast pump device involving an action of causing release of underpressure.
Re Claim 16, Simmons teaches the controller arrangement further comprising a communication arrangement for communicating with an external device or system that is separate from the fluid pressure arrangement of the breast pump device, and that serves to provide information to a person, including information about detection of software malfunctioning and initiation of a procedure aimed at releasing underpressure.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17-22 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 prior art fails to anticipate or make obvious wherein a total timing of a procedure of causing release of underpressure in case malfunctioning of the operation software program is detected is less than 1 second. Furthermore, this limitation is not a matter of design choice where prompt release of underpressure could prevent damage to the breast pump, prevent loss of milk via leaking, and prevent injury to a user. Claims 18-22 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on independent Claim 17.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 12/22/2025 with respect to claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. While most claim objections have been withdrawn due to amendment, some claim objections remain outstanding. Some new claim objections, directed to new claims, have been provided as well.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On Page 9 of the response, applicant argues the following:
As disclosed at p. 10, lines 30-33, the "controller arrangement 5 further includes a monitoring arrangement 53 that is configured to monitor functioning of the operation software program and to cause release of underpressure in case malfunctioning of the operation software program is detected." Plainly, therefore, the monitoring arrangement is configured to monitor the functioning of an operation software. If software causes the breast pump not to be able to read out a pressure sensor, for example, let alone take some kind of remedial action. By monitoring the software (using an element outside the monitored software), provides robustness against software failures. Simmons, et al. fails to disclose at least this feature of claim 1.
Applicant’s claims do not recite monitoring “an element outside the monitored software” for monitoring the software. On Page 10 of the response, applicant argues, with regard to prior art Simmons, “rather than a device for monitoring the functioning of software of a breast pump, [paragraph 0016 of] Simmons, et al. teaches monitoring of certain components of the device when discrepancies in the expected pressure occur. So, rather than monitoring the software, Simmons, et al. monitors the physical parameters of the breast pump, like the pressure.” This would be correct, and when the software of Simmons detects that the monitored pressure deviates from what it should be, the software causes “the controller to return the pressure system to a specified position, such as an initial position,” which is being interpreted as restarting, or start-up. Applicant has not provided sufficient detail as to what constitutes a start-up procedure in the claims and therefore, examiner has taken a broad interpretation as to what this might comprise.
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
/KEVIN C SIRMONS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3783