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 § 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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reed et al. (USPGPub 2024/0416017).
Re Claim 1, Reed teaches a wearable leak-proof breast suction device (10) (Reed Figs. 3 and 4), comprising: a body (12); a breast shield (14), comprising: a breast suction cover (36), detachably disposed on the body (12) (as seen in Reed Fig. 7), a through hole (30) (Reed ¶ 0033), configured to accept a nipple of a user during an operation of the breast suction device (10) (Reed ¶ 0038), and a sucker (48), protruding from a surface of the breast suction cover (36) (Reed Fig. 7), and configured to cover the breast of the user during the operation (Reed ¶ 0038), wherein the through hole (30) is formed within the sucker (48) and surrounded by a circumference of the sucker (48) (as seen in Reed Fig. 8). However, Reed fails to explicitly teach the sucker, integrally formed on the breast suction cover. Examiner notes the use of a one piece construction as opposed to the construction proposed in Reed is merely a matter of engineering design choice. In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965); See also MPEP 2144.04 (V-A).
PNG
media_image1.png
731
520
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re Claim 2, Reed teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1. Reed teaches wherein a connecting pipe (14-2) is disposed between the sucker (14) and the breast suction cover (36) (Reed Fig. 11; Annotated Fig. 11 above), and the connecting pipe (14-2) is connected to the through hole (14-1) and extends in a direction toward the three-way member (50) (Reed Annotated Fig. 11).
Re Claim 3, Reed teaches all of the limitations of Claim 2. Reed teaches wherein each of the connecting pipe (14-2) and the sucker (14) is made of a flexible material (Reed ¶ 0038 - silicone). Reed fails to explicitly teach the cover (36) being made of a flexible material. However, the examiner notes that the selection of a known material based upon its suitability for the intended use is a design consideration well within the ordinary skill of the art. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Re Claim 4, Reed teaches all of the limitations of Claim 2. Reed teaches wherein an inner edge (14-3) of the connecting pipe (14-2) is curved at a connection with an edge of the through hole (14-1) of the sucker (14) (Reed Annotated Fig. 11 above).
Re Claim 5, Reed teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1. Reed teaches wherein a surface area of a contact area of the sucker is less than a surface area of the breast suction cover (36) (Reed Figs. 1, 7-8, and 11).
Re Claim 6, Reed teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1. Reed teaches wherein the breast suction cover (36) has a curved edge (as seen in Reed Fig. 12).
Re Claim 7, Reed teaches all of the limitations of Claim 2. Reed teaches wherein the connecting pipe (14-2) and the sucker are integrally formed (Reed Annotated Fig. 11 above), nut not the breast suction cover being integrally formed. However, the use of a one piece construction as opposed to the construction proposed in Reed is merely a matter of engineering design choice. In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965); See also MPEP 2144.04 (V-A).
Re Claim 8, Reed teaches all of the limitations of Claim 3. Reed teaches wherein each of the connecting pipe and the sucker are made of a silicone material (Reed ¶ 0038). However, Reed does not teach the breast suction cover is made of silicone. However, the examiner notes that the selection of a known material based upon its suitability for the intended use is a design consideration well within the ordinary skill of the art. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Re Claim 9, Reed teaches a breast shield (14) for a breast suction device (10) (Reed Figs. 3 and 4), comprising: a breast suction cover (36), configured to be detachably disposed on a body (12) of the breast suction device (10) (as seen in Reed Fig. 7), a through hole (30) (Reed ¶ 0033), configured to accept a nipple of a user during an operation of the breast suction device (10) (Reed ¶ 0038), and a sucker (48), protruding from a surface of the breast suction cover (36) (Reed Fig. 7), and configured to cover the breast of the user during the operation (Reed ¶ 0038), wherein the through hole (30) is formed within the sucker (48) and surrounded by a circumference of the sucker (48) (as seen in Reed Fig. 8). However, Reed fails to explicitly teach the sucker, integrally formed on the breast suction cover. Examiner notes the use of a one piece construction as opposed to the construction proposed in Reed is merely a matter of engineering design choice. In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965); See also MPEP 2144.04 (V-A).
Re Claim 10, Reed teaches all of the limitations of Claim 9. Reed teaches wherein a connecting pipe (14-2) is disposed between the sucker (14) and the breast suction cover (36) (Reed Fig. 11; Annotated Fig. 11 above), and the connecting pipe (14-2) is connected to the through hole (14-1) and extends in a direction toward the three-way member (50) (Reed Annotated Fig. 11).
Re Claim 11, Reed teaches all of the limitations of Claim 10. Reed teaches wherein each of the connecting pipe (14-2) and the sucker (14) is made of a flexible material (Reed ¶ 0038 - silicone). Reed fails to explicitly teach the cover (36) being made of a flexible material. However, the examiner notes that the selection of a known material based upon its suitability for the intended use is a design consideration well within the ordinary skill of the art. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Re Claim 12, Reed teaches all of the limitations of Claim 10. Reed teaches wherein an inner edge (14-3) of the connecting pipe (14-2) is curved at a connection with an edge of the through hole (14-1) of the sucker (14) (Reed Annotated Fig. 11 above).
Re Claim 13, Reed teaches all of the limitations of Claim 9. Reed teaches wherein a surface area of a contact area of the sucker is less than a surface area of the breast suction cover (36) (Reed Figs. 1, 7-8, and 11).
Re Claim 14, Reed teaches all of the limitations of Claim 9. Reed teaches wherein the breast suction cover (36) has a curved edge (as seen in Reed Fig. 12).
Re Claim 15, Reed teaches all of the limitations of Claim 10. Reed teaches wherein the connecting pipe (14-2) and the sucker are integrally formed (Reed Annotated Fig. 11 above), nut not the breast suction cover being integrally formed. However, the use of a one piece construction as opposed to the construction proposed in Reed is merely a matter of engineering design choice. In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965); See also MPEP 2144.04 (V-A).
Re Claim 16, Reed teaches all of the limitations of Claim 11. Reed teaches wherein each of the connecting pipe and the sucker are made of a silicone material (Reed ¶ 0038). However, Reed does not teach the breast suction cover is made of silicone. However, the examiner notes that the selection of a known material based upon its suitability for the intended use is a design consideration well within the ordinary skill of the art. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 02/12/2026 with respect to drawing objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. Due to amendments, drawing objections are hereinafter withdrawn
Applicant's arguments filed 02/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In the middle of Page 6 of the response, applicant argues that element 36, interpreted as the breast suction cover in the present case, is a part of the housing. Applicant has described this as an unreasonable interpretation of prior Reed. Examiner does not believe this interpretation is unreasonable where element 36 fits the claim language upon which it has been applied. Applicant should claim around prior Reed, either by claiming structure in the present case not disclosed by Reed or describing a function of an already claimed structure that Reed cannot perform. With regard to “integrally formed language in Claim 1, referenced to in the middle of Page 6 of the response, prior art Reed is silent as to the sucker being integrally formed with the breast suction cover. However, the use of a one piece construction is merely a matter of engineering design choice and will not form the basis for an allowance. In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965); See also MPEP 2144.04 (V-A).
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
Prosecution Insights