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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in China on 06/05/2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the CN202321411576.8 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
PNG
media_image1.png
332
856
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the limitation “connection surface” in claim 1; the limitation “a liquid sensor disposed at said ventilation structure and a waterproof valve connected to said liquid sensor” in claim 5; the limitation “position fitting” in claim 6; the limitation “wherein there are two first suction members, and said ventilation structure is arranged on the perpendicular bisector of the connection line of the two first suction members” of claim 7 must be label, shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
This disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: It is the Examiner's position that Applicant has invoked sixth paragraph, means-plus-function language to define Applicant's invention. Therefore, the Examiner requires the Applicant to amend the specification pursuant to 37 CFR1.75(d) and MPEP 608.01 (o) to explicitly state, with reference to the terms and phrases of the claim element, what structure, materials, and acts perform the function recited in the claim element, what structure, materials, and acts perform the function recited in the claim element. Please not that the MPEP clearly states “Even if the disclosure implicitly sets forth the structure, materials, or acts corresponding to the means-(or step-) plus-function claim element in compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112, first and second paragraphs, the PTO may still require the applicant to amend the specification pursuant to 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP 608.01(o)…”. (Also see MPEP 2181 (Rev. 1, Feb. 2000)).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: It is the Examiner’s position that Applicant has evoked sixth paragraph, means-plus-function language to define Applicant’s invention. Therefore, the Examiner has objected to the claims for the reason set forth above in the objection to the specification. Appropriate correction is required.
112 6th Acknowledgement
With regard to Applicant’s “waterproof means” of claim 1, the language appears to be an attempt to invoke 35 USC 112, 6th paragraph interpretation of the claims. A claim limitation will be interpreted to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, if it meets the following 3-prong analysis:
(A) the claim limitations must use the phrase “means for ” or “step for; ”
(B) the “means for ” or “step for ” must be modified by functional language;
and
(C) the phrase “means for ” or “step for ” must not be modified by sufficient structure, material or acts for achieving the specified function.
In the instant case, applicant appears to have met the limitations set forth in MPEP § 2181, and examiner has turned to the specification for clarification.
In the specification, applicant defines the “waterproof means” comprises a waterproof membrane disposed on the ventilation hole and/or the ventilation column. Accordingly, the examiner is interpreting the “waterproof means” to encompass a waterproof membrane/material and its equivalents. Equivalent structures may include those that perform the function specified in the claim, structures that are not excluded by any specific definition provided in the specification for an equivalent, or is a structural equivalent of the corresponding element disclosed in the specification. See MPEP 2183.
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.
Claim 9 is 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.
The limitation “said breast pump main unit is provided with a milk pouring port” in claim 9 is failing to comply with the written description requirement. The Fig. 1 shows that a milk poring port 14 is a part of the casing 1. In other words, the casing 1 is provided a milk pouring port. It is noted that the breast pump main unit 2 is not provided the milk pouring port 14, as recited in the claim 9.
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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the connection surface" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 3-4 recites the limitation "said ventilation hole" in line 1; the limitation “said ventilation column” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Note: the limitation “ventilation column” has been introduced in claim 2. However, the claim 3 depends on claim 1 but does not depend on claim 2.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the position fitting …" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the perpendicular bisector of the connection line of the two first suction members" in lines 1-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the outside …" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The other claims 2, 5-6, 8 are also being rejected due to their dependency.
Claims 5-7 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.
In claim 5, the limitation “it triggers said waterproof valve to close” is vague. It is unclear to Examiner that the word “it” is being referred to “a liquid sensor” or “a water leakage signal”?
In claim 6, the limitation “the position fitting” is vague. It is unclear to Examiner that which element is considered as “position fitting”? Where is the position fitting being located in the breast pump?
In claim 7, the limitation “wherein there are two first suction members, and said ventilation structure is arranged on the perpendicular bisector of the connection line of the two first suction members” is vague. The Fig. 1 shows that the two first suction member 11 is being spaced from the ventilation structure 3 (e.g., the connection in between the elements 31 & 32). It is unclear to Examiner that where is the perpendicular bisector of the connection line? Where is the connection line being located? Can Applicant show this feature?
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: a liquid sensor disposed at said ventilation structure and a waterproof valve connected to said liquid sensor.
The Fig. 3 does not show that the ventilation structure 3 includes any other elements that being located inside the ventilation structure 3. Although the Fig. 6 shows a flowchart of the waterproof means; however, it is unclear to Examiner that where is the waterproof valve being located so that the waterproof valve is being connected to the liquid sensor. Is the waterproof valve is located inside the ventilation structure 3?
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 1-2, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hwang et al. (US 2021/0369927).
Regarding claim 1, Hwang discloses an isolated wearable breast pump comprising:
a milk collecting casing 700 for storing milk, and a breast pump main unit 810 connected to said milk collecting casing for drawing air inside said milk collecting casing;
a connection surface 400 (e.g., a top surface of the casing 700 and/or a bottom surface of the main unit 810, see Fig. 3) between said milk collecting casing and said breast pump main unit is provided with a ventilation structure 410 & 431 (see Figs. 4 & 7-9), which is provided with a waterproof means 410 & 500 used to prevent liquid from entering said breast pump main unit (e.g., para [0042] states that: the air passage 410 is vertically separated by the flow separation membrane 500. Since the breast milk does not flow out by the flow separation membrane 500. Therefore, the elements 410 & 500 are equivalent to the claimed “waterproof means” that only allows air flow but not a liquid).
Regarding claim 2, wherein said ventilation structure 410 & 431 includes a ventilation column 431 disposed on the connection surface 400 of said milk collecting casing 700 and said breast pump main unit 810, and a ventilation hole 410 disposed on said breast pump main unit and cooperating with said ventilation column 431.
Regarding claim 8, wherein said milk collecting casing 700 further has a connecting portion 100/110 for fitting with mammillae, and a negative pressure cavity (in between membrane 500 and lid 400, also see para [0055], also see Fig. 4) disposed inside the connection surface (e.g., a top surface of the casing 700 and/or a bottom surface of the main unit 810, see Fig. 3) and communicating with said breast pump main unit 810.
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al. (US 2021/0369927).
Regarding claim 3, Hwang discloses all claimed subject matter, as required. Hwang fails to disclose the material of the ventilation hole and the ventilation column. it appears that the ventilation hole 410 (in Fig. 4) adopts a soft rubber material; where the ventilation column 431 is closely plugged in and in sealing connection with said ventilation hole 410, para [0055] & Fig. 8. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to obtain the ventilation hole formed of soft rubber material and the ventilation column formed of a hard rubber material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al. (US 2021/0369927) in view of Mashiko et al. (US 20030216119).
Hwang discloses all the claimed subject matter as required except for the limitation that a waterproof membrane disposed on said ventilation hole and/or said ventilation column.
Mashiko discloses a waterproof or ventilation member comprising: a waterproof membrane 6 disposed on a ventilation hole 3.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the waterproof device (or a ventilation member) of Hwang with providing a waterproof membrane disposed on a ventilation hole, as taught by Mashiko, in order to prevent water or dust from invading an inside of the breast pump device.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al. (US 2021/0369927) in view of Sharratt et al. (US 10,508,422).
Hwang discloses all the claimed subject matter as required except for the limitation that waterproof means further includes a liquid sensor disposed at said ventilation structure and a waterproof valve connected to said liquid sensor, when said liquid sensor detects a water leakage signal, it triggers said waterproof valve to close.
Sharratt discloses in Background, col. 1, lines 30-38 that: Automated water shutoff systems have been developed to automatically close the shutoff valve in the event of a leak condition. Such systems generally include an automated valve and one or more sensors positionable in various locations to monitor and detect the presence of water. For example, a sensor may be placed near a water heater to monitor the space around the water heater for leaks. When water is detected, the sensor triggers the automated valve to close.
Note: Sharratt describes that the sensor is placed near a water heater to monitor the water leaking around the water heater. Giving the suggestion as discussed from Sharratt, a person skilled in the art would recognize that the sensor, i.e. liquid sensor can be placed near or any location that near the place to detect the water leakage. For example: in this case, the liquid sensor can be placed near or at the ventilation hole for detecting water leaking into the ventilation structure, and also providing a water shutoff valve connected to the liquid sensor; when the leaking water is detected, the sensor triggers the automated valve to close.
Giving such a teaching from Sharratt, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have easily recognizes that modifying the ventilation structure device of Hwang with a liquid sensor and a water shutoff valve being connected to the liquid sensor, as suggested by Sharratt, would provide the benefit of alerting the user that leaking water in the system and preventing the water entering unwanted location.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al. (US 2021/0369927) in view of Zhang (US 11,273,240).
Hwang discloses all the claimed subject matter as required. Hwang also discloses that the connection surface between the milk collecting casing, as mentioned in the rejection of claim 1 above. Hwang does not disclose the limitation that the connection surface between said milk collecting casing and said breast pump main unit is provided with a milk pouring port, which has an inclination towards the outside of said milk collecting casing.
Zhang discloses a breast pump device comprising: a milk pouring port 11 has inclination (at inner wall/surface of the port 11) towards an outside of a milk collecting casing 13.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Hwang with providing a milk poring port, as taught by Zhang, in order to achieve the dual function of breast pumping and milk collecting in a single breast pump device and leading to a high practicability, see col. 7, lines 5-12.
Note: Zhang also discloses that the milk pouring port 11 can be located at other location of the main body. Therefore, Hwang in view of Zhang discloses the milk pouring port can be located in either casing 700 or breast pump main unit, as considered as rearrangement parts.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUYNH-NHU HOANG VU whose telephone number is (571)272-3228. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:30 am-4:00 pm.
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, Michael Tsai can be reached on 571-270-5246. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Quynh-Nhu H. Vu/
Quynh-Nhu H Vu
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783