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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120 as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 17962556, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. The prior filed application fails to provide support for one of the housing and the milk bowl is provided with an elastic protrusion, another of the housing and the milk bowl is provided with a groove corresponding to the elastic protrusion, and, when the housing is assembled with the milk bowl, the elastic protrusion is placed in the groove (claim 1).
The instant application is examined with a filing date of 4/22/2023.
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 8, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second 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.
Regarding claim 8, the claim recites that the suction port, the milk flowing port, and the negative pressure port are “spatially communicated” with each other. The scope of the term “spatially communicating” is unclear. It is unclear if this term is merely attempting to convey that the components are near each other due to the term “spatially” or if the term should be construed more narrowly and is intending to convey that the components are in fluid communication with each other. For examination purposes, the latter interpretation was used.
Further regarding claim 8, the claim recites “the negative pressure generated by the air pump acts on the negative pressure port through the membrane, and milk secreted by a breast flows into the milk storage cavity through the milk flowing port”. It is unclear if this limitation is drawn to merely to a breast pump with a structure capable of performing these method steps or if it further includes a method comprising these steps. An amendment more specifically reciting the structure of the components and their functional relationship without describing a method step would clarify the ambiguity. For examination purposes, the claim is interpreted to mean that “the negative pressure generated by the air pump is configured to act on the negative pressure port through the membrane, and milk secreted by a breast is configured to flow into the milk storage cavity through the milk flowing port”.
Regarding claim 12, the claim recites that the air outlet “spatially communicates” with the membrane. As discussed above, the scope of the term “spatially communicating” is unclear. It is unclear if this term is merely attempting to convey that the milk outlet is near the milk storage cavity due to the term “spatially” or if the term should be construed more narrowly and is intending to convey that the milk outlet fluidically communicates with the milk storage cavity. For examination purposes, the latter interpretation was used.
Claim 11 is also rejected by virtue of being dependent on claim 8.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7, 9, and 10 are allowed.
Claims 8, 11, and 12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The claims in this application are allowed because the prior art of record fails to disclose either singly or in combination the claimed breast pump.
The closest prior art of record is Chen (US 11554199).
Regarding independent claim 1, Chen fails to teach among all the limitations or render obvious an elastic protrusion, in combination with the total structure and function as claimed.
Chen discloses a breast pump (fig. 1) comprising a milk bowl (milk storage container 12 in fig. 5), a breast shield detachably connected to the milk bowl (shield 33 in fig. 5) which forms a storage cavity with the milk bowl (fig. 6). Chen discloses a main body detachably connected to the milk bowl (suction assembly 11 in fig. 5) comprising a pump (fig. 6) and a connecting groove (suction port 112 in fig. 4) which is configured to receive a connecting post of the milk bowl (guide column 127 in fig. 5).
Chen further discloses the milk bowl is provided with a protrusion (plugging block 129 in fig. 5) which corresponds to a groove on the housing (plugging slot 115 in fig. 3). However, there is no indication in Chen that the protrusion is elastic, as required by the claim.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COURTNEY FREDRICKSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7481. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9 AM - 5 PM 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, BHISMA MEHTA can be reached at 571-272-3383. 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.
/COURTNEY B FREDRICKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783