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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-7 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 recites the limitations “a manipulable portion configured to deform as a whole” in Lines 6-7 and “wherein the part of the remaining manipulable portion is configured to be free of direct as well as indirect contact with the stimulating mechanism” in Lines 17-18. The specification and figures fail to provide support for such limitations. Furthermore, applicant has not provided for where support for such limitations is found in the specification or figures in the arguments filed 01/06/2026 that accompany these amendments. Additionally, these two limitations appear to contradict each other. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
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 1-7 and 9-12 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. Claim 1 recites the limitation “a manipulable portion configured to deform as a whole” in Lines 6-7. Claim 1 then recites the limitation “wherein the manipulable portion has a thinnest portion and a remaining manipulable portion” in Lines 10-11. Finally, in Lines 17-18 of Claim 1 is recited the limitation “wherein the part of the remaining manipulable portion is configured to be free of direct as well as indirect contact with the stimulating mechanism.” It is unclear how the manipulable portion is deformable as a whole, the manipulable portion including a thinnest portion and a remaining manipulable portion, while a part of the remaining manipulable portion is configured to be free of direct as well as indirect contact with the stimulating mechanism. It would not seem possible for the manipulable portion to be deformable as a whole while a part of the manipulable portion is free from direct or indirect contact with the mechanism that causes deformation. Appropriate correction and/or clarification 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 1-7 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nowroozi et al. (USPGPub 2016/0058928).
Re Claim 1, Nowroozi teaches a funnel (1) configured to be used with a breast milk pump (Nowroozi Figs. 1A-1B; ¶ 0075), the funnel (1) comprising: a funnel first open end configured to engage a breast of a user (3); a funnel second open end (5) opposite to the funnel first open end (3) (as seen in Nowroozi Figs. 1A-1B); and a funnel intermediate portion (4) extending between the funnel first open end (3) and the funnel second open end (5), the funnel intermediate portion (4) comprising a manipulable portion (17, 18, 19) (Nowroozi Annotated Fig. 5B below) configured to deform as a whole upon being at least indirectly contacted by a mechanical component of a stimulating mechanism (26) of the breast milk pump (Nowroozi ¶ 0084, 0088 - wherein inferior and lateral aspects 17, 18 and 19 are indirectly contacted by negative pressure produced by vacuum 26), and a remaining portion (20) at least partially surrounding the manipulable portion (17, 18, 19) and configured to retain a shape thereof upon operation of the stimulating mechanism (26), wherein the manipulable portion (17, 18, 19) has a thinnest portion (17) and a remaining manipulable portion (18, 19) (Nowroozi ¶ 0084), and wherein a thickness of the manipulable portion (17, 18, 19) increases from the thinnest portion (17) towards at least a part of the remaining manipulable portion (20-1) at least in a first direction extending between the funnel first open end (3) and the funnel second open end (5) in a central longitudinal cross-sectional plane (Nowroozi Figs. SA-5F; ¶ 0084 - describing variable thicknesses of inferior and lateral aspects 17, 18, 19), the central longitudinal cross-sectional plane being vertically oriented when the funnel (1) is assembled with the breast milk pump and a milk collection container (40) of the breast milk pump is positioned on a flat surface in an upright orientation (as seen in Nowroozi Fig. 7), and wherein the part of the remaining manipulable portion (20-1) is configured to be free of direct as well as indirect contact with the stimulating mechanism (26) (Nowroozi Annotated Fig. 5B below; ¶ 0084 - wherein part of remaining manipulable portion 20-1 is a part of superior portion 20, a portion not intended to be in contact with negative pressure port 7).
PNG
media_image1.png
273
369
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re Claim 2, Nowroozi teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1. Nowroozi teaches wherein the thickness of the manipulable portion (18, 18, 19) increases from the thinnest portion (17) towards a first direction extending between the funnel first open end (3) and the funnel second open end (5) and a second direction perpendicular to the first direction (Nowroozi Annotated Fig. 5B; ¶ 0084; Figs. 5A-5F).
Re Claim 3, Nowroozi teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1. Nowroozi teaches wherein the manipulable portion (17, 18, 19) is flexible (Nowroozi Annotated Fig. 5B; ¶ 0074, 0084).
Re Claim 4, Nowroozi teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1. Nowroozi teaches wherein the thinnest portion (17) is more flexible than the remaining manipulable portion (20-1) (Nowroozi ¶ 0084 - "the inferior aspect 17 of the structure 1 offers the greatest flexibility and ease of collapse").
Re Claim 5, Nowroozi teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1. Nowroozi teaches wherein the funnel first open end (3) is configured to retain its shape upon operation of the stimulating mechanism (26) (Nowroozi ¶ 0081).
Re Claim 6, Nowroozi teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1. Nowroozi teaches wherein the funnel second open end (5) is configured to retain its shape upon operation of the stimulating mechanism (26) (Nowroozi ¶ 0081).
Re Claim 7, Nowroozi teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1. Nowroozi teaches wherein at least the manipulable portion (17, 18, 19) is made of a material comprising silicon (Nowroozi Annotated Fig. 5B; ¶ 0074).
Re Claims 9 and 10: Nowroozi teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1. Nowroozi teaches wherein the manipulable portion (17, 18, 19) is configured to deform upon being at least indirectly contacted by a mechanical component of the stimulating mechanism (26) (Nowroozi Annotated Fig. 5B; ¶ 0084, 0088 - wherein inferior and lateral aspects 17, 18 and 19 are indirectly contacted by negative pressure produced by vacuum 26, a mechanical device); and wherein the manipulable portion (17, 18, 19) is configured to deform upon being stroked, at least indirectly, by the mechanical component along the first direction (Nowroozi ¶ 0084, 0088 - wherein inferior and lateral aspects 17, 18 and 19 are indirectly contacted by negative pressure produced by vacuum 26, a mechanical device).
Re Claim 11, Nowroozi teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1. Nowroozi teaches wherein the funnel (1) further comprises a rigid portion (2) which comprises an internal surface facing an interior of the funnel (1) (Nowroozi Annotated Fig. 5B; ¶ 0075, 0082, 0086), and wherein the manipulable portion (17, 18, 19) constitutes at least a part of a flexible layer which is over-molded over a majority of the internal surface of the rigid portion (2) (Nowroozi ¶ 0075, 0082, 0086).
Re Claim 12, Nowroozi teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1. Nowroozi teaches wherein the flexible layer (layers of inferior and lateral aspects 17, 18 and 19) comprises silicon and the rigid portion (2) comprises plastic (Nowroozi ¶ 0075, 0082, 0086).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments begin in the last paragraph of Page 4 of the response. There, applicant argues at a minimum, the PTO has not demonstrated that Nowroozi discloses (1) "a manipulable portion configured to deform as a whole" and "a remaining portion at least partially surrounding the manipulable portion and configured to retain a shape thereof upon operation of the stimulating mechanism," as recited in currently amended independent claim 1; (2) "the part of the remaining manipulable portion is configured to be free of direct as well as indirect contact with the stimulating mechanism," as recited in claim 1; and (3) "a manipulable portion being at least indirectly contacted by a mechanical component of a stimulating mechanism," as recited in claim 1. It is unclear where in the specification or figures support for these amendments can be found. Examiner has searched applicant’s specification and support cannot be found for said amendments. In addition, it is unclear how the manipulable portion is deformable as a whole, the manipulable portion including a thinnest portion and a remaining manipulable portion, while a part of the remaining manipulable portion is configured to be free of direct as well as indirect contact with the stimulating mechanism. It would not seem possible for the manipulable portion to be deformable as a whole while a part of the manipulable portion is free from direct or indirect contact with the mechanism that causes deformation. Applicant’s amendments to Claim 1 contradict one another. Examiner has attempted to reinterpret prior art Nowroozi as best as possible in light of what would appear to be new matter and an indefinite contradiction within Claim 1. On Page 6 of the response, applicant states “it is respectfully submitted that different parts of the same element 20 of Nowroozi cannot be simultaneously equated with both the recited "manipulable portion" and the recited "remaining portion", which, as recited in currently amended independent claim 1, are distinct portions having different functional characteristics.” Applicant’s argument points to the very indefiniteness that embodies Claim 1, where both the "manipulable portion" and the "remaining portion" are equated with having the same functional characteristics, deformation, which at the same time is contradicted in Claim 1.
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 /REBECCA E EISENBERG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3781