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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/19/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 08/19/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 7, 8, and 11 have been amended. Claims 5 and 19 have been cancelled. Claims 2-4, 6, 9, 10, 12-18 are in the original/previously presented form. Thus, claims 1-4, 6-18 remain pending in the application.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
The recitation, in claim 1, of “an electromechanical device…configured to selectively open and close the inlet portion or the outlet portion to allow air into the inlet portion or the outlet portion to create a vibratory waveform” has been interpreted as structurally a device that combines electrical and mechanical processes to perform tasks like producing a vibratory waveform, such as a motor, a solenoid or switch [0099]. The electromechanical device has also been interpreted as a flow restrictor valve or pressure relief system, when an electromechanical mechanism may not be needed [0102].
The recitation, in claim 3, of “a second electromechanical device configured to selectively allow air into the inlet portion or the outlet portion to create the vibratory waveform” has been interpreted as structurally a device that combines electrical and mechanical processes to perform tasks like producing a vibratory waveform, such as a motor, a solenoid or switch [0099]. The electromechanical device has also been interpreted as a flow restrictor valve or pressure relief system, when an electromechanical mechanism may not be needed [0102].
The recitation, in claim 10, of “a feedback control mechanism configured to tune the vibratory waveform” has been interpreted as structurally a mechanism in which feedback from the user is collected and reported back to the controller for adjustments [0081].
The recitation, in claim 11, of “an electromechanical device…configured to selectively block the suction to create a vibratory waveform” has been interpreted as structurally a device that combines electrical and mechanical processes to perform tasks like producing a vibratory waveform, such as a motor, a solenoid or switch [0099]. The electromechanical device has also been interpreted as a flow restrictor valve or pressure relief system, when an electromechanical mechanism may not be needed [0102].
The recitation, in claim 12, of “a second electromechanical device configured to selectively block the suction” has been interpreted as structurally a device that combines electrical and mechanical processes to perform tasks like producing a vibratory waveform, such as a motor, a solenoid or switch [0099]. The electromechanical device has also been interpreted as a flow restrictor valve or pressure relief system, when an electromechanical mechanism may not be needed [0102].
The recitation, in claim 13, of “a second electromechanical device configured to selectively engage the suction tube to create the vibratory waveform” has been interpreted structurally as a device that combines electrical and mechanical processes to perform tasks like producing a vibratory waveform, such as a motor, a solenoid or switch [0099]. The electromechanical device has also been interpreted as a flow restrictor valve or pressure relief system, when an electromechanical mechanism may not be needed [0102].
Because this/these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 6, 7, 9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Britto (United States Patent No. US 6,673,036 B1), and further in view of Adahan (United States Patent No. US 4,726,745 A), Quisenberry et al. (United States Patent No. US 10,300,180 B1; herein, Quisenberry), Meyers et al. (United States Patent No. US 5,542,921 A; herein, Meyers), and Makower et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0072118 A1; herein, Makower).
Regarding claim 1, Britto discloses a vacuum motor device (electric breast pump 10) for facilitating milk extraction from a breast of a user (col. 3 lines 6-14, electric breast pump 10 stimulates the natural sucking rhythms of an infant to extract milk from a breast), the device comprising:
an inlet portion (FIG. 6, flexible hose 84 connected to valve manifold 82);
an outlet portion coupled to the inlet portion (FIG. 6, outlet 86);
a motor (electric pump motor 70) configured to cause air to flow into the inlet portion and out of the outlet portion during a breast pumping cycle to create suction for extracting the milk (col. 5 lines 26-34, electric pump motor 70 runs diaphragm pump 72 which sucks air through flexible hose 84 and pushes air out of outlet 86);
an electromechanical device (solenoid 76), including a solenoid or switch (FIG. 6, solenoid 76); and
a controller (pump controller 68) programmed to control the electromechanical device (col. 6 lines 14-17, pump controller 68 controls the solenoid 76).
Britto does not disclose the electromechanical device positioned in series with the motor, the electromechanical device further positioned at the inlet portion or the outlet portion and configured to selectively open and close the inlet portion or the outlet portion to allow air into the inlet portion or the outlet portion to create a vibratory waveform.
However, Adahan teaches the electromechanical device positioned in series with the motor (FIG. 4, vacuum switch 198 is provided in series with the motor 106). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electromechanical device and motor disclosed by Britto to be in series as taught by Adahan in order to terminate the operation of the pump to minimize the consumption of power (col. 6 lines 29-38).
Britto in view of Adahan still does not disclose the electromechanical device further positioned at the inlet portion or the outlet portion and configured to selectively open and close the inlet portion or the outlet portion to allow air into the inlet portion or the outlet portion to create a vibratory waveform.
However, Quisenberry teaches the electromechanical device further positioned at the inlet portion or the outlet portion (FIG. 18, The inlet 1812 is fluidly coupled to a fourth valve 1850, which is a solenoid valve, and allows fluids 1809 to be drawn into the inlet 1812.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified electromechanical device and inlet portion disclosed by Britto to position the electromechanical device at the inlet portion as taught by Quisenberry in order to facilitate the drawing of fluids, such as air, through the inlet (col. 16 line 48-59).
Britto in view of Adahan and Quisenberry still does not disclose the electromechanical device configured to selectively open and close the inlet portion or the outlet portion to allow air into the inlet portion or the outlet portion to create a vibratory waveform.
However, Meyers teaches selectively opening and closing the inlet portion or the outlet portion to allow air into the inlet portion or the outlet portion to create a waveform (col. 7 line 59 – col. 8 line 20, specifically “An inlet port 157 on valve cover 143 is operably connected to inlet valve 147. When pump 141 is operated, air is initially drawn from suction inlet 92 into vacuum inlet port 157 on valve cover 143 through an open inlet valve 147 and into cavity 145. As the valve body 146 reciprocatingly moves in an opposite direction, inlet valve 147 closes and the air is forced across cavity 145, through outlet valve 148, and out exhaust port 158.”. It is commonly understood that the opening and closing of inlet and outlet valves as air is moved through would create a natural breast pumping waveform.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified electromechanical device disclosed by Britto to selectively open and close the inlet portion and the outlet portion to allow air into the inlet portion and the outlet portion to create a waveform as taught by Meyers in order to withdraw air from the funnel to create a vacuum that extracts milk from the mother's breast (col. 4 lines 46-67).
Britto in view of Adahan, Quisenberry, and Meyers still does not explicitly disclose the waveform being vibratory.
However, Makower teaches a way in which to make a waveform vibratory (FIG. 27, FIG. 34, FIG. 41, [0194], [0213], [0220], Vibration members 3400 oscillate into an away from the breast which can facilitate milk extraction. During operation in a milk extraction session, a pressure waveform is maintained over repeated pumping cycles, such as the one in FIG. 41. Activating the vibration members 3400 during the pumping cycle would add a vibratory element to pressure waveform 4100.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the waveform taught by Meyers of the modified device disclosed by Britto to be a vibratory waveform as taught by Makower in order to facilitate maximization of milk volume expressed through stimulation ([0213]).
Regarding claim 6, in the modified device of Britto, Britto discloses the electromechanical device includes a switch (solenoid 76) configured to create the vibratory waveform by increasing and decreasing pressure (col. 5 lines 39-50, col. 6 lines 14-17; The solenoid 76 maintains the alternating suction/release rhythm by energizing, causing the plunger 90 to retract, and de-energizing, causing the plunger 90 to release. The oscillation of pressure movement would create a natural breast pumping waveform.; In claim 1, the vibratory waveform was created by activating the vibration members taught by Makower during the pumping cycle taught by Meyers.)
Regarding claim 7, in the modified device of Britto, Britto discloses the electromechanical device includes a solenoid (solenoid 76) that is modulated to provide the vibratory waveform (col. 5 lines 39-50, col. 6 lines 14-17; The solenoid 76 maintains the alternating suction/release rhythm by energizing, causing the plunger 90 to retract, and de-energizing, causing the plunger 90 to release. The oscillation of pressure movement would create a natural breast pumping waveform.; In claim 1, the vibratory waveform was created by activating the vibration members taught by Makower during the pumping cycle taught by Meyers.).
Regarding claim 9, in the modified device of Britto, Britto discloses the solenoid is positioned in a normally opened configuration or a normally-closed configuration (col. 5 lines 39-50, col. 6 lines 14-17; The solenoid 76 maintains the alternating suction/release rhythm by energizing, causing the plunger 90 to retract, and de-energizing, causing the plunger 90 to release. When unpowered, no suction occurs, signaling the solenoid is in a normally-closed, or de-energized, state).
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Britto in view of Adahan, Quisenberry, Meyers, and Makower as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen (United States Patent No. US 8,961,454 B2).
Regarding claim 2, in the modified device of Britto, Britto does not disclose the electromechanical device further includes a second motor configured to selectively allow air into the inlet portion or the outlet portion to create the vibratory waveform.
However, Chen teaches the electromechanical device further includes a second motor (second vacuum source motor 21) configured to selectively allow air into the inlet portion or the outlet portion to create the vibratory waveform (FIG. 1, FIG. 3, col. 4 lines 11-21, 40-42, col. 5 lines 28 45; The second vacuum source motor 21 drives second vacuum source 20 in building negative pressure in the second air chamber 35 through second tube 23. The oscillation of pressure movement, from allowing air in by work of motor 21 to release, would create a natural breast pumping waveform.; In claim 1, the vibratory waveform was created by activating the vibration members taught by Makower during the pumping cycle taught by Meyers.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified electromechanical device disclose by Britto to include a second motor as taught by Chen in order in order to replicate the movements involved in the contraction and expansion of a baby's oral cavity, those being opening and closing of the mouth and swallowing (col. 3 line 52 - col. 4 line 5).
Regarding claim 3, in the modified device of Britto, Britto discloses the controller (pump controller 68) is programmed to receive input from the user to control one or both of the electromechanical devices to thereby manipulate the vibratory waveform (col. 5 lines 18-28, col. 6 lines 14-17, pump controller 68 controls the solenoid 76, and pump controller 68 is activated by pushing power button 24).
Britto does not disclose a second electromechanical device configured to selectively allow air into the inlet portion or the outlet portion to create the vibratory waveform.
However, Chen teaches a second electromechanical device (second vacuum source motor 21) configured to selectively allow air into the inlet portion or the outlet portion to create the vibratory waveform (FIG. 1, FIG. 3, col. 4 lines 11-21, 40-42, col. 5 lines 28-45; The second vacuum source motor 21 drives second vacuum source 20 in building negative pressure in the second air chamber 35 through second tube 23. The oscillation of pressure movement, from allowing air in by work of motor 21 to release, would create a natural breast pumping waveform.; In claim 1, the vibratory waveform was created by activating the vibration members taught by Makower during the pumping cycle taught by Meyers.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified vacuum motor device disclose by Britto to include a second electromechanical device as taught by Chen in order in order to replicate the movements involved in the contraction and expansion of a baby's oral cavity, those being opening and closing of the mouth and swallowing (col. 3 line 52 - col. 4 line 5).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Britto in view of Adahan, Quisenberry, Meyers, and Makower as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bonutti et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2013/0253387 A1; herein, Bonutti).
Regarding claim 4, in the modified device of Britto, in the Britto does not disclose a frequency of the vibratory waveform is between 2 Hz and 20 Hz. However, Bonutti teaches a frequency of the vibratory waveform is between 2 Hz and 20 Hz ([0170], “Exemplary vibratory energy operating frequencies may include ranges between any of 0 kHz, 0.03 kHz…may be adjusted during operation”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vibratory waveform produced by the vacuum motor device disclosed by Britto to output a vibratory frequency between the range of 0 kHz-0.03 kHz as taught by Bonutti in order that the vibration frequency cause enough disruption ([0002]) to the breast to stimulate milk flow. Further, applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (see applicant’s specification [0062] indicating the claimed range “may” be ideal for some embodiments).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Britto in view of Adahan, Quisenberry, Meyers, and Makower as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Pate et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2010/0268334 A1; herein, Pate).
Regarding claim 8, in the modified device of Britto, Britto does not disclose the electromechanical device includes multiple solenoids configured to release a vacuum and provide the vibratory waveform.
However, Pate teaches the electromechanical device includes multiple solenoids (FIG. 7, solenoids 145a-m) configured to release a vacuum and provide the vibratory waveform ([0169]; Pistons 160,170 uses solenoids 145 to maintain pressure of the pump and continuous fluid flow. The persistent activation/deactivation of the individual solenoids as the piston moves around the pump would create a breast pumping waveform.; In claim 1, the vibratory waveform was created by activating the vibration members taught by Makower during the pumping cycle taught by Meyers.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified electromechanical device disclosed by Britto to include multiple solenoids being activated and deactivated, creating some form of a vibratory waveform as taught by Pate, as it is known in the art that solenoids have fast response times to changing electrical charges and precise motion control in pneumatic system.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Britto in view of Adahan, Quisenberry, Meyers, and Makower as applied to claim 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Jäger-Waldau (United States Patent No. US 8,734,386 B2).
Regarding claim 10, in the modified device of Britto, Britto does not disclose a feedback control mechanism configured to tune the vibratory waveform.
However, Jäger-Waldau discloses a feedback control mechanism configured to tune the vibratory waveform (means for adjusting 41 the speed of the electric motor affects the suction output against the breast; In claim 1, the vibratory waveform was created by activating the vibration members taught by Makower during the pumping cycle taught by Meyers.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vacuum motor device disclosed by Britto to include a feedback control mechanism as taught by Jäger-Waldau in order for the user to have control over the output, as well as reducing the wear of the electric motor (col. 4 lines 29-44).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Britto, and further in view of Adahan, Quisenberry, and Makower.
Regarding claim 11, Britto discloses a vacuum motor device (electric breast pump 10) for facilitating milk extraction from a breast of a user (col. 3 lines 6-14, electric breast pump 10 stimulates the natural sucking rhythms of an infant to extract milk from a breast), the device comprising:
an inlet portion (FIG. 6, flexible hose 84 connected to valve manifold 82);
an outlet portion coupled to the inlet portion (FIG. 6, outlet 86);
a motor (electric pump motor 70) configured to cause air to flow into the inlet portion and out of the outlet portion during a breast pumping cycle to create suction for extracting the milk (col. 5 lines 26-34, electric pump motor 70 runs diaphragm pump 72 which sucks air through flexible hose 84 and pushes air out of outlet 86);
an electromechanical device (solenoid 76) including at least one solenoid or switch (FIG. 6, solenoid 76); configured to selectively block the suction to create a waveform (col. 5 lines 39-50, col. 6 lines 14-17; The solenoid 76 maintains the alternating suction/release rhythm by energizing, causing the plunger 90 to retract, and de-energizing, causing the plunger 90 to release. Suction is blocked when plunger 90 retracts and vacuum pressure is released. The oscillation of pressure movement would create a natural breast pumping waveform.); and
a controller (pump controller 68) programmed to receive input from the user to control the electromechanical device to thereby manipulate the waveform (col. 5 lines 18-28, col. 6 lines 14-17, pump controller 68 controls the solenoid 76, and pump controller 68 is activated by pushing power button 24).
Britto does not disclose the electromechanical device positioned in series with the motor, the electromechanical device further positioned at the inlet portion or the outlet portion, and the waveform being vibratory.
However, Adahan teaches the electromechanical device positioned in series with the motor (FIG. 4, vacuum switch 198 is provided in series with the motor 106). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electromechanical device and motor disclosed by Britto to be in series as taught by Adahan in order to terminate the operation of the pump to minimize the consumption of power (col. 6 lines 29-38).
Britto in view of Adahan still does not disclose the electromechanical device further positioned at the inlet portion or the outlet portion, and the waveform being vibratory.
However, Quisenberry teaches the electromechanical device further positioned at the inlet portion or the outlet portion (FIG. 18, The inlet 1812 is fluidly coupled to a fourth valve 1850, which is a solenoid valve, and allows fluids 1809 to be drawn into the inlet 1812.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified electromechanical device and inlet portion disclosed by Britto to position the electromechanical device at the inlet portion as taught by Quisenberry in order to facilitate the drawing of fluids, such as air, through the inlet (col. 16 line 48-59).
Britto in view of Adahan and Quisenberry still does not explicitly disclose the waveform being vibratory.
However, Makower teaches a way in which to make a waveform vibratory (FIG. 27, FIG. 34, FIG. 41, [0194], [0213], [0220], Vibration members 3400 oscillate into an away from the breast which can facilitate milk extraction. During operation in a milk extraction session, a pressure waveform is maintained over repeated pumping cycles, such as the one in FIG. 41. Activating the vibration members 3400 during the pumping cycle would add a vibratory element to pressure waveform 4100.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the waveform taught by Meyers of the modified device disclosed by Britto to be a vibratory waveform as taught by Makower in order to facilitate maximization of milk volume expressed through stimulation ([0213]).
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Britto in view Adahan, Quisenberry, and Makower as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Chen.
Regarding claim 12, in the modified device of Britto, Britto discloses the controller (pump controller 68) is programmed to receive input from the user to control one or both of the electromechanical devices to thereby manipulate the vibratory waveform (col. 5 lines 18-28, col. 6 lines 14-17, pump controller 68 controls the solenoid 76, and pump controller 68 is activated by pushing power button 24; In claim 11, the vibratory waveform was created by activating the vibration members taught by Makower during the pumping cycle taught by Meyers.).
Britto does not disclose a second electromechanical device configured to selectively block the suction.
However, Chen teaches a second electromechanical device (second vacuum source motor 21) configured to selectively block the suction (FIG. 1, FIG. 3, col. 4 lines 11-21, 40-42, col. 5 lines 28-45; The second vacuum source motor 21 drives second vacuum source 20 in building negative pressure in the second air chamber 35 through second tube 23. When the motor 21 is unactuated, suction is blocked and no negative pressure can be built.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vacuum motor device disclose by Britto to include a second electromechanical device as taught by Chen in order to replicate the movements involved in the contraction and expansion of a baby's oral cavity, those being opening and closing of the mouth and swallowing (col. 3 line 52 - col. 4 line 5).
Regarding claim 13, in the modified device of Britto, Britto discloses a suction tube for extracting the milk (FIG. 8, vacuum inlet passage 108).
Britto does not disclose a second electromechanical device configured to selectively engage the suction tube to create the vibratory waveform.
However, Chen teaches a second electromechanical device (second vacuum source motor 21) configured to selectively engage the suction tube to create the vibratory waveform (FIG. 1, FIG. 3, col. 4 lines 11-21, 40-42, col. 5 lines 28-45; The second vacuum source motor 21 drives second vacuum source 20 in building negative pressure in the second air chamber 35 through second tube 23. The oscillation of pressure movement, by sending negative pressure through the tube at intervals, would create a natural breast pumping waveform.; In claim 11, the vibratory waveform was created by activating the vibration members taught by Makower during the pumping cycle taught by Meyers.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified vacuum motor device disclose by Britto to include a second electromechanical device to engage with a suction tube as taught by Chen in order to replicate the movements involved in the contraction and expansion of a baby's oral cavity, those being opening and closing of the mouth and swallowing (col. 3 line 52 - col. 4 line 5).
Regarding claim 14, in the modified device of Britto, Britto discloses the controller (pump controller 68) is programmed to receive input from the user to control the electromechanical devices to thereby manipulate the vibratory waveform (col. 5 lines 18-28, col. 6 lines 14-17, pump controller 68 controls the solenoid 76, and pump controller 68 is activated by pushing power button 24; In claim 11, the vibratory waveform was created by activating the vibration members taught by Makower during the pumping cycle taught by Meyers.).
Chen teaches the electromechanical device is the second electromechanical device (second vacuum source motor 21). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified vacuum motor device and controller disclose by Britto to include a second electromechanical device controlled by a controller as taught by Chen in order that under the control of the controller, the various components work in conjunction with one another to create the sensation of being suckled by a baby, thus effectively increasing the secretion of milk (col. 3 lines 5 9).
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Britto in view Adahan, Quisenberry, and Makower as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Jäger-Waldau.
Regarding claim 15, in the modified device of Britto, Britto does not disclose an opening formed in the device to allow air into the inlet portion or the outlet portion to create the vibratory waveform; and a fastener sized to engage the opening.
However, Jäger-Waldau discloses an opening formed in the device to allow air into the inlet portion or the outlet portion to create the vibratory waveform (FIG. 1a, Passage opening 13 surrounded by conical seal 14 is connected in sequence with inlet 30 and outlet 34.; In claim 11, the vibratory waveform was created by activating the vibration members taught by Makower during the pumping cycle taught by Meyers.); and a fastener sized to engage the opening (FIG. 1a, conical sealing body 16 has shape complementary to seal 14). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified vacuum motor device disclosed by Britto to include an opening and fastener for opening as taught by Jäger Waldau in order to protect the electrical components from damage due to improperly pumped off milk (col. 3 lines 30-62).
Regarding claim 16, in the modified device of Britto, Britto discloses the controller (pump controller 68) is programmed to receive input from the user to thereby manipulate the vibratory waveform (col. 5 lines 18-28, col. 6 lines 14-17, Pump controller 68 controls the solenoid 76, and pump controller 68 is activated by pushing power button 24.; In claim 11, the vibratory waveform was created by activating the vibration members taught by Makower during the pumping cycle taught by Meyers.).
Britto does not disclose the input being to thread the fastener into or out of the opening.
However, Jäger-Waldau discloses threading the fastener into or out of the opening (FIG. 1a, conical sealing body 16 has shape complementary to seal 14 and moving in and out of complementary position affects air flow). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified vacuum motor device and controller disclosed by Britto to include an opening and fastener for opening as taught by Jäger-Waldau in order to protect the electrical components from damage due to improperly pumped off milk (col. 3 lines 30-62).
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Britto in view Adahan, Quisenberry, and Makower as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of O'Toole et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2018/0361040 A1; herein, O'Toole).
Regarding claim 17, in the modified device of Britto, Britto does not disclose a bleeder valve configured to selectively allow air into the inlet portion or the outlet portion based upon a pressure exerted by the air on the bleeder valve to create the vibratory waveform.
However, O’Toole teaches a bleeder valve (bleed valve 126) configured to selectively allow air into the inlet portion or the outlet portion based upon a pressure exerted by the air on the bleeder valve to create the vibratory waveform (FIGURE. 12, [0164], First bleed valve 126 supplies atmospheric air to the system.; In claim 11, the vibratory waveform was created by activating the vibration members taught by Makower during the pumping cycle taught by Meyers.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified vacuum motor device disclosed by Britto to incorporate a bleed valve as taught by O’Toole in order to help regulate the internal pressure of the system during times of negative pressure ([0163]-[0165]).
Regarding claim 18, in the modified device of Britto, Britto discloses the controller (pump controller 68) is programmed to receive input from the user to thereby manipulate the vibratory waveform (col. 5 lines 18-28, col. 6 lines 14-17, Pump controller 68 controls the solenoid 76, and pump controller 68 is activated by pushing power button 24.; In claim 11, the vibratory waveform was created by activating the vibration members taught by Makower during the pumping cycle taught by Meyers.).
Britto does not disclose the input being to control the bleeder valve.
However, O’Toole teaches the input being to control the bleeder valve (FIGURE. 12, [0164], first bleed valve 126 supplies atmospheric air to the system). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified vacuum motor device disclosed by Britto to incorporate a bleed valve as taught by O’Toole in order to help regulate the internal pressure of the system during times of negative pressure ([0163]-[0165]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 11-13 of Applicant’s Response, with respect to claims 1 and 11 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Hegen (United States Patent No. US 8,715,225 B2) is considered relevant prior art with regards to a breast pump having vibrating means.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Evelyn A Thoman whose telephone number is (571)272-8496. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 a.m-4:30 p.m..
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 at 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 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.
/EVELYN A THOMAN/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3783
/THEODORE J STIGELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783
Prosecution Insights