Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 15, 2026
Application No. 18/026,357

BREAST PUMP DEVICE AND CONTROLLER FOR THE DEVICE, AND A CONTROL METHOD

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Mar 15, 2023
Examiner
HALL, DEANNA K
Art Unit
3783
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Koninklijke Philips N.V.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
76%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 2m
To Grant
93%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 76% — above average
76%
Career Allow Rate
857 granted / 1130 resolved
+5.8% vs TC avg
Strong +17% interview lift
Without
With
+17.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
62 currently pending
Career history
1192
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.7%
-39.3% vs TC avg
§103
45.5%
+5.5% vs TC avg
§102
35.3%
-4.7% vs TC avg
§112
11.1%
-28.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1130 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 3/15/23;10/29/25 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97(b). Accordingly, the IDSs are being considered by the Examiner. 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)(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, 6-8, 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Van Schijndel et al. (US 2012/0116298) (“Van Schijndel”). Van Schijndel discloses: (claim 1) A controller 220 for a breast pump device (Fig. 3), wherein the controller is for controlling operation of a pressure source 152 of the breast pump device to apply an under-pressure (150,170; modes/pressures are changed based on the movement of the diaphragm 140 up or down [0075-0076,0062]), the controller comprising: an input (200, sensed or computer algorithm [0072,0074]) for receiving an input signal relating to a milk flow during a breast pumping session using the breast pump device; and an output (trigger signal 180, [0075,0072]) for controlling operation of the pressure source in dependence on the input signal, thereby to switch, during the breast pumping, between three modes [0075-0076,0063-0064]: a low energy mode (relaxation mode or neutral mode) with a first pressure profile of the pressure source; an expression mode (expression mode) with a second pressure profile of the pressure source; and a stimulation mode (stimulation effect, let-down mode-instigates an MER) with a third, pressure profile of the pressure source, wherein the first to third pressure profiles are all different, wherein the output is for controlling operation of the pressure source to follow a sequence comprising the stimulation mode followed by alternating expression modes and low energy modes, [0063-0064]. (claim 8) A breast pump device 100, comprising at least one breast receiving portion 111 configured to receive a breast of a user; a pressure source 152 coupled to the at least one breast receiving portion and being configured to generate at least an under-pressure (150,170; modes/pressures are changed based on the movement of the diaphragm 140 up or down [0075-0076,0062]); a sensor 210,230 for generating said input signal 200 relating to the milk flow during a breast pumping session; and the controller 220 of claim 1 (see above). (claim 12, 15) see claims 1 and 8 in combination, above and [0074,0088—computer program, algorithm] Claim 2: the breast pumping session comprises a continuous sequence of said time periods of the low energy mode and the expression mode after the stimulation mode. [0063-0064] Claim 3, 13: the low energy mode has a lower electrical power consumption than each of the expression mode and the stimulation mode. [0064] Claim 4, 13: the low energy mode has a lower maximum under-pressure level and/or a longer dwell in time and/or a longer dwell out time than the expression mode. [0064] Claim 6, 14: the input signal indicates at least one of: the detection of milk drops; a cumulative milk flow; a milk flow gradient; and a trend in the milk flow gradient. [0008,0071] Claim 7: the controller adapted to derive a relationship between the cumulative milk flow and time for a particular user, and to derive a program of operation of the pressure source for the particular user from the relationship [0071-0072,0074-0076,0062-0064,0068]. 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. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Schijndel in view of Barack (US 2018/0110906). Van Schijndel discloses the invention as substantially claimed (see above), but does not directly disclose the pressure at which the breast pump device operates in the various modes. Barack, in the analogous art teaches a similar dynamically adaptive breast pump device which operates above 20 kPa pressure for expression mode and below 20 kPa pressure in low energy mode [0037], (Van Schijndel [0062]). It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Schijndel in view of Gaskin et al. (US 2017/0021068) (“Gaskin”). Van Schijndel discloses the invention as substantially claimed (see above), but does not directly disclose the sensor being an optical sensor. Gaskin, in the analogous art, teaches a similar processing unit for sensing characteristics of milk expression and using that sensing data to help automate the management and monitoring of milk production [0085-0086]. One of the sensors used in Gaskin is an optical sensor (photodiode/LED sensor) [0085]. It is known that these sensors comprise an optical emitter and an optical detector arrangement. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the photodiode sensor as taught by Gaskin in the system of Van Schijndel as another type of sensor to improve convenience for the user [Gaskin 0086]. With respect to claim 11, the device of Van Schijndel is a battery-operated 160 Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEANNA K HALL whose telephone number is (571)272-2819. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am- 4:30pm 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 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. /DEANNA K HALL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 15, 2023
Application Filed
Nov 20, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Apr 02, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12582799
CATHETER ASSEMBLY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12576244
FLEXIBLE UNIVERSAL CATHETER SECUREMENT DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12575857
Trocar Support
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12564414
METHOD OF SUPRA-AORTIC ACCESS FOR A NEUROVASCULAR PROCEDURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12564703
MEDICAL TOOL POSITIONING DEVICES, SYSTEMS, AND METHODS OF USE AND MANUFACTURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
76%
Grant Probability
93%
With Interview (+17.1%)
3y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1130 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month