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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 05/14/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-3, 6-8, and 11-14 have been amended. Claims 5 and 19 have been cancelled. Claims 4, 9-10, and 15-18 are in the original/previously presented form. Thus, claims 1-4, 6-18 remain pending in the application.
Drawings
The amendment to the drawings was received on 05/14/2026. Applicant addressed all previous objections. The drawings are acceptable.
Specification
The use of the term BLUETOOTH, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks. The examiner suggest amending the term to read “Bluetooth®” if the device works specifically with wireless technology made by Bluetooth® Special Interest Group. Otherwise, the examiner suggest referring to the technology as “wireless communication”, “wireless pairing”, or others of the sort.
Claim Objections
The amendment to claims 3 and 12 was received on 05/14/2026. Applicant successfully addressed all previous claim objections. The claim objections are withdrawn.
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 is/are:
The recitation, in claim 1, of “an electromechanical device, including at least one solenoid or switch, configured to selectively 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 including at least one solenoid or switch 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 these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/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 it/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 § 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, 8, and 11 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 claims 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.
Regarding claims 1, 7, 8, and 11, the claims have been amended to recite the limitation of an electromechanical device including “at least one solenoid or switch”. However, there does not appear to be any support in the drawings or specification for this amended claim language. On page 11 of the Applicant’s Response (filed 05/14/2026), the Applicant cites paragraph [0099] of the specification as support for the amended claim language. Paragraph [0099] states “the vacuum motor device 2000 uses an electromechanical device 2010, such as a solenoid or switch, to oscillate and/or purposefully leak air into the system from the outside during the system operation”. This alleged support for the amended claim language supports the electromechanical device having only one solenoid or only one switch. Paragraph [0099] and the rest of the specification does not provide support for the possibility of having multiple solenoids or switches, possibly at the same time, beyond the required at least one.
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 and 11 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 1 and 11, in the seventh line of both claims, the claims state “an electromechanical device including at least one solenoid or switch”. The amended claim language “at least one solenoid or switch” renders the claim indefinite by failing to clearly state the bounds of how many solenoids or switches may be present in the electromechanical device at one time. The amended claim language insinuates multiple solenoids and/or switches could be present in the electromechanical device at a given moment, as long as at least one of either a solenoid or a switch is present. The examiner suggests amending the amended claim language to better articulate the presence of the solenoid or switch, and how many are present as well. For the purposes of examination, the examiner will interpret the claim to mean the electromechanical device must incorporate a solenoid and/or a switch.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6, 7, 9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Britto (United States Patent No. US 6,673,036 B1).
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 at least one solenoid or switch (FIG. 6, solenoid 76), configured to selectively allow air into the inlet portion or the outlet portion to create a 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 vibratory waveform.); and
a controller (pump controller 68) programmed to control the electromechanical device (col. 6 lines 14-17, pump controller 68 controls the solenoid 76).
Regarding claim 6, 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 vibratory waveform.).
Regarding claim 7, Britto discloses the at least one solenoid or switch of 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 vibratory waveform.).
Regarding claim 9, 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).
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 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. Suction is blocked when plunger 90 retracts and vacuum pressure is released. The oscillation of pressure movement would create a natural vibratory waveform.); and
a controller (pump controller 68) programmed to receive input from the user to control the electromechanical device 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).
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 2, 3, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Britto as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Chen (United States Patent No. US 8,961,454 B2).
Regarding claim 2, 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 vibratory 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 vacuum motor 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, 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 vibratory 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 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).
Regarding claim 12, 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 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 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, Britto discloses a suction tube for extracting the milk (FIG. 8, vacuum inlet passage 108).
Britto does not disclose 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 vibratory 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 vacuum motor device disclose by Britto to include a second electromechanical device to engage with a suction tube 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 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). 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 vacuum motor device disclose by Britto to include a second electromechanical device controlled by a controller as taught by Chen in order 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).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Britto 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, 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 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, 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 vibratory 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 vacuum motor 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.
Claims 10, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Britto 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, 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). 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).
Regarding claim 15, 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); 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 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).
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 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).
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Britto 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, 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). 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 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).
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 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]). Combining the controller and bleed valve would give the user the ability to control the amount of suction applied, which would in turn create a vibratory waveform.
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. The amended limitation “including at least one solenoid or switch” is interpreted by the examiner as being anticipated by Britto.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kayser (United States Patent No. US 5,419,768 A) is considered relevant prior art with regards to a vacuum regulator utilizing a solenoid valve.
Sutton et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2019/0083688 A1) is considered relevant prior art with regards to a breast vacuum pump utilizing a solenoid and motor.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds 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 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
/MICHAEL J TSAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3783
Prosecution Insights