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. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-18 in the reply filed on 02/11/2026 is acknowledged. Claim 19 is withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on FILLIN "Enter date IDS was filed" \* MERGEFORMAT 06/14/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. 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 “ FILLIN "Enter features that must be shown" \* MERGEFORMAT h-bridge ” as claimed in claim 5, the “restricting device” as claimed in claims 13 and 14, and the “fastener” as claimed in claims 15 and 16 must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character in FIG. 18 not mentioned in the description: FILLIN "Enter the appropriate information " \* MERGEFORMAT 1503 . The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference signs mentioned in the description: FILLIN "Enter reference sign(s) not found in the drawings and include page and line number where they first occur in the specification" \* MERGEFORMAT diaphragm 2002 as mentioned in paragraph [0100], motor system 2011 as mentioned in paragraph [0101], and vacuum motor device 2100 as mentioned in paragraph [0111] . The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “ FILLIN "Enter reference number that refers to different parts" \* MERGEFORMAT 2020 ” in FIG. 20 has been used to designate both FILLIN "Identify the part" \* MERGEFORMAT a control mechanism and, FILLIN "Identify the part" \* MERGEFORMAT what is assumed by the examiner to be, a diaphragm . Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) , or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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 The use of the term FILLIN "Identify the term that is a trade name or mark used in commerce." \d "[ 1 ]" "Bluetooth" , which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application, specifically in paragraphs [0087], [0108], and [0109]. 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. Claim Objections Claim s 3 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities: The claims state "...the controller is programmed to receive input from the user to control one or both of the electromechanical device and the second electromechanical device to thereby manipulate the vibratory waveform." The structure of this sentence is confusing and leads to misunderstanding as to what devices the controller is meant to control and how that affects the vibratory waveform. Appropriate correction is required. The examiner suggests changing the language of the sentence to “…the controller is programmed to receive input from the user to control one or both of the electromechanical devices to thereby manipulate the vibratory waveform.” 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 limitation(s) 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 limitation(s) is/are : The recitation, in claim 1, of “an electromechanical device 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 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 restricting device configured to selectively engage the suction tube to create the vibratory waveform ” has been interpreted structurally as a device that can impede or stop the flow of suction. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/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 this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) 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 limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/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 FILLIN "Pluralize claim, if necessary, and then insert the claim number(s) which is/are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 1-3, 6, 10-12, 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jäger-Waldau (United States Patent No. US 8,734,386 B2) and further in view of Trivikram (United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2019/0298947 A1), Berkhof et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2019/0336661 A1; herein, Berkhof ), and Kelly et al. (United States Patent No. US 8,137,305 B2; herein, Kelly) . Regarding claim 1 , Jäger-Waldau discloses a vacuum motor device for facilitating milk extraction from a breast of a user (breast milk pump 1) , the device comprising: an inlet portion (Fig. 1a, inlet 30) ; an outlet portion coupled to the inlet portion (Fig. 1a, outlet 34) ; a motor (electric motor 27) 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. 7 line 59 - col. 8 line 19) . Jäger-Waldau does not disclose an electromechanical device configured to selectively allow air into the inlet portion or the outlet portion to create a vibratory waveform; and a controller programmed to control the electromechanical device. However, Trivikram teaches an electromechanical device (second electromechanical motor 244) . 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 device disclosed by Jäger-Waldau to include a second electromechanical motor as taught by Trivikram in order to operate multiple functions of the device at the same time. Further, Jäger-Waldau in view Trivikram still does not disclose the second electromechanical motor as taught by Trivikram is configured to selectively allow air into the inlet portion or the outlet portion to create a vibratory waveform . However, Berkhof teaches selectively allow ing air into the inlet portion or the outlet portion to create a vibratory waveform ([0094], electroactive polymers (EAPs) regulate air pressure and control pressure states to create a peristaltic pressure motion ) . 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 second electromechanical motor as taught by Trivikram of the modified device disclosed by Jäger-Waldau to regulate the air allowed in and out of the pump as taught by Berkhof in order to mimic the baby suckling behavior and create a more realistic vibratory motion. Finally, Jäger-Waldau in view Trivikram and Berkhof still does not disclose a controller programmed to control the electromechanical device . However, Kelly teaches a controller (control circuit 69) programmed to control the electromechanical device (F IG. 3, col. 4 lines 32-44, “Programmable control circuit 69 provides central control for 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 device disclosed by Jäger-Waldau to include a control circuit with the ability to control functionality of the device as taught by Kelly in order to have a central component that manages inputs and outputs for the motors and electromechanical elements of the device. Regarding claim 2 , in the modified device of Jäger-Waldau , Trivikram teaches the electromechanical device is a second motor (second electromechanical motor 244) . 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 device disclosed by Jäger-Waldau to specify the electromechanical device as a motor as taught by Trivikram in order to operate multiple functions of the device at the same time. Further, Berkhof teaches selectively allow ing air into the inlet portion or the outlet portion to create a vibratory waveform ([0094], electroactive polymers (EAPs) regulate air pressure and control pressure states to create a peristaltic pressure motion) . 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 second motor as taught by Trivikram of the modified device disclosed by Jäger-Waldau to regulate the air allowed in and out of the pump as taught by Berkhof in order to mimic the baby suckling behavior and create a more realistic vibratory motion. Regarding claim 3 , in the modified device of Jäger-Waldau , Trivikram teaches a second electromechanical device (second electromechanical motor 244) . 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 device disclosed by Jäger-Waldau to include a second electromechanical motor as taught by Trivikram in order to operate multiple functions of the device at the same time. Further, Berkhof teaches selectively allow ing air into the inlet portion or the outlet portion to create a vibratory waveform ([0094], electroactive polymers (EAPs) regulate air pressure and control pressure states to create a peristaltic pressure motion) . 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 second motor as taught by Trivikram of the modified device disclosed by Jäger-Waldau to regulate the air allowed in and out of the pump as taught by Berkhof in order to mimic the baby suckling behavior and create a more realistic vibratory motion. Finally, Kelly teaches wherein the controller (control circuit 69) is programmed to receive input from the user to control one or both of the electromechanical device and the second electromechanical device to thereby manipulate the vibratory waveform (FIG. 3, col. 4 lines 32-44 , command inputs can include vacuum level selector 19 and vacuum rate selector 21 which are adjustable by the user ) . 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 device disclosed by Jäger-Waldau to include a control circuit with the ability to control functionality of the device as taught by Kelly in order to have a central component that manages inputs, specifically ones adjusted by the user, and outputs for the motors and electromechanical elements of the device. Regarding claim 6 , in the modified device of Jäger-Waldau , Trivikram teaches the electromechanical device is a second motor (second electromechanical motor 244) . 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 device disclosed by Jäger-Waldau to specify the electromechanical device as a motor as taught by Trivikram in order to operate multiple functions of the device at the same time. Further, Berkhof teaches create the vibratory waveform by increasing and decreasing pressure ([0094], electroactive polymers (EAPs) regulate air pressure and control pressure states to create a peristaltic pressure motion) . 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 second motor as taught by Trivikram of the modified device disclosed by Jäger-Waldau to regulate the air pressure allowed of the pump as taught by Berkhof in order to mimic the baby suckling behavior and create a more realistic vibratory motion. Regarding claim 10 , in the modified device of Jäger-Waldau , 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 ) . Regarding claim 11 , a vacuum motor device for facilitating milk extraction from a breast of a user (breast milk pump 1) , the device comprising: an inlet portion (Fig. 1a, inlet 30) ; an outlet portion coupled to the inlet portion (Fig. 1a, outlet 34) ; a motor (electric motor 27) 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. 7 line 59 - col. 8 line 19) . Jäger-Waldau does not disclose an electromechanical device configured to selectively block the suction to create a vibratory waveform; and a controller programmed to receive input from the user to control the electromechanical device to thereby manipulate the vibratory waveform. However, Trivikram teaches an electromechanical device (second electromechanical motor 244) . 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 device disclosed by Jäger-Waldau to include a second electromechanical motor as taught by Trivikram in order to operate multiple functions of the device at the same time. Further, Jäger-Waldau in view Trivikram still does not disclose the second electromechanical motor as taught by Trivikram is configured to selectively block the suction to create a vibratory waveform . However, Berkhof teaches selectively block ing the suction to create a vibratory waveform ([0094], electroactive polymers (EAPs) “ in off state blocks the air vent to ambient [pressure] and an actuated EAP blocks the under pressure, so that the cavity can be regulated between ” pressure states ) . 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 second electromechanical motor as taught by Trivikram of the modified device disclosed by Jäger-Waldau to regulate the air pressure of the pump by blocking vent access occasionally as taught by Berkhof in order to mimic the baby suckling behavior and create a more realistic vibratory motion. Finally, Jäger-Waldau in view Trivikram and Berkhof still does not disclose a controller programmed to receive input from the user to control the electromechanical device to thereby manipulate the vibratory waveform . However, Kelly teaches a controller (control circuit 69) programmed to receive input from the user to control the electromechanical device to thereby manipulate the vibratory waveform (FIG. 3, col. 4 lines 32-44 , command inputs can include vacuum level selector 19 and vacuum rate selector 21 which are adjustable by the user) . 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 device disclosed by Jäger-Waldau to include a control circuit with the ability to control functionality of the device as taught by Kelly in order to have a central component that manages inputs, specifically ones adjusted by the user, and outputs for the motors and electromechanical elements of the device. Regarding claim 12 , in the modified device of Jäger-Waldau , Trivikram teaches a second electromechanical device (second electromechanical motor 244) . 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 device disclosed by Jäger-Waldau to include a second electromechanical motor as taught by Trivikram in order to operate multiple functions of the device at the same time. Further, Berkhof teaches selectively block ing the suction ([0094], electroactive polymers (EAPs) “ in off state blocks the air vent to ambient [pressure] and an actuated EAP blocks the under pressure, so that the cavity can be regulated between ” pressure states ) . 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 second motor as taught by Trivikram of the modified device disclosed by Jäger-Waldau to regulate the air pressure of the pump by blocking vent access occasionally as taught by Berkhof in order to mimic the baby suckling behavior and create a more realistic vibratory motion. Finally, Kelly teaches wherein the controller (control circuit 69) is programmed to receive input from the user to control one or both of the electromechanical device and the second electromechanical device to thereby manipulate the vibratory waveform (FIG. 3, col. 4 lines 32-44 , command inputs can include vacuum level selector 19 and vacuum rate selector 21 which are adjustable by the user) . 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 device disclosed by Jäger-Waldau to include a control circuit with the ability to control functionality of the device as taught by Kelly in order to have a central component that manages inputs, specifically ones adjusted by the user, and outputs for the motors and electromechanical elements of the device. Regarding claim 15 , in the modified device of Jäger-Waldau , 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) . Regarding claim 16 , in the modified device of Jäger-Waldau , Jäger-Waldau discloses thread ing the fastener into or out of the opening to thereby manipulate the vibratory waveform (Fig. 1a, conical sealing body 16 has shape complementary to seal 14 and moving in and out of complementary position affects air flow ) . Kelly teaches the controller (control circuit 69) is programmed to receive input from the user (FIG. 3, col. 4 lines 32-44 , command inputs can include vacuum level selector 19 and vacuum rate selector 21 which are adjustable by the user) . 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 device disclosed by Jäger-Waldau to include a control circuit with the ability to control functionality of the device as taught by Kelly in order to have a central component that manages inputs, specifically ones adjusted by the user, for the motors and electromechanical elements of the device which output varying pressures and vibrations. Claim FILLIN "Pluralize claim, if necessary, and then insert the claim number(s) which is/are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jäger-Waldau in view of Trivikram , Berkhof , and Kelly as applied to claim FILLIN "Pluralize claim, if necessary, and then insert the claim number(s) which is/are under rejection." \d "[ 3 ]" 1 above, and further in view of FILLIN "Insert the additional prior art reference(s) relied upon for the obviousness rejection." \d "[ 4 ]" Bonutti et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2013/0253387 A1; herein, Bonutti ) . Regarding claim 4 , in the modified device of Jäger-Waldau , Jäger-Waldau 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 second electromechanical motor taught by Trivikram in the modified device of Jäger-Waldau 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 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 FILLIN "Pluralize claim, if necessary, and then insert the claim number(s) which is/are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FILLIN "Insert the prior art reference(s) relied upon for the obviousness rejection." \d "[ 2 ]" Jäger-Waldau in view of Trivikram , Berkhof , and Kelly as applied to claim FILLIN "Pluralize claim, if necessary, and then insert the claim number(s) which is/are under rejection." \d "[ 3 ]" 1 above, and further in view of FILLIN "Insert the additional prior art reference(s) relied upon for the obviousness rejection." \d "[ 4 ]" Feluch et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2018/0347319 A1; herein, Feluch ) . Regarding claim 5 , in the modified device of Jäger-Waldau , Jäger-Waldau does not disclose an h-bridge to drive the motor to cyclically create a vacuum and release the vacuum, by alternating a polarity to the motor. However, Feluch teaches an h-bridge to drive the motor to cyclically create a vacuum and release the vacuum, by alternating a polarity to the motor ([0094], “vibration transducer drive circuitry 264 comprises an H-bridge circuit…The H-bridge circuit alternates the polarity of the DC voltage from the capacitors, such that the alternating polarity of the voltage has a particular frequency, where a wave having the frequency may traverse through the tubing 114”) . 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 electric motor disclosed in the modified device of Jäger-Waldau to include an h-bridge circuit as taught by Feluch , as it is known in the art h-bridge circuits are a convenient way of switching direction of current and control over the speed and output of the motor. Claims FILLIN "Pluralize claim, if necessary, and then insert the claim number(s) which is/are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FILLIN "Insert the prior art reference(s) relied upon for the obviousness rejection." \d "[ 2 ]" Jäger-Waldau in view of Trivikram , Berkhof , and Kelly as applied to claim FILLIN "Pluralize claim, if necessary, and then insert the claim number(s) which is/are under rejection." \d "[ 3 ]" 1 above, and further in view of FILLIN "Insert the additional prior art reference(s) relied upon for the obviousness rejection." \d "[ 4 ]" Pate et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2010/0268334 A1; herein, Pate) . Regarding claim 7 , in the modified device of Jäger-Waldau , Jäger-Waldau does not disclose the electromechanical device includes a solenoid that is modulated to provide the vibratory waveform. However, Pate teaches the electromechanical device includes a solenoid (solenoid 145) that is modulated to 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 modified device disclosed by Jäger-Waldau to include a solenoid that is modulated 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. Regarding claim 8 , in the modified device of Jäger-Waldau , Jäger-Waldau 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, solenoid s 145 a-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 modified device disclosed by Jäger-Waldau to include solenoids that are 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. Regarding claim 9 , in the modified device of Jäger-Waldau , Jäger-Waldau does not disclose the solenoid is positioned in a normally-opened configuration or a normally-closed configuration. However, Pate teaches the solenoid ( FIG. 7, solenoid s 145 a-m ) is positioned in a normally-opened configuration or a normally-closed configuration ([0169], The solenoids attract the piston 160 as it approaches, and repel as the midplanes of the two align by current produced control system 111) . 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 device disclosed by Jäger-Waldau to have the solenoid in a normally-open or normally-closed position displayed in Pate, as it can be inferred that any solenoid would enter into a normally-open or normally-closed position at some point during use . This constitutes whether current is being activated, as seen when the piston approaches the solenoid in Pate, or when no current is being activated, as the other solenoids not near the piston would experience at any given moment in Pate. The applicant has not specified at what point during use of the device the solenoid needs to be in a normally-open or normally-closed position. Claims FILLIN "Pluralize claim, if necessary, and then insert the claim number(s) which is/are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FILLIN "Insert the prior art reference(s) relied upon for the obviousness rejection." \d "[ 2 ]" Jäger-Waldau in view of Trivikram , Berkhof , and Kelly as applied to claim FILLIN "Pluralize claim, if necessary, and then insert the claim number(s) which is/are under rejection." \d "[ 3 ]" 11 above, and further in view of FILLIN "Insert the additional prior art reference(s) relied upon for the obviousness rejection." \d "[ 4 ]" Alizoti (United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2019/0240533 A1) . Regarding claim 13 , in the modified device of Jäger-Waldau , Jäger-Waldau discloses a suction tube for extracting the milk ( Fig. 1a, suction line 31) . Jäger-Waldau does not disclose a restricting device configured to selectively engage the suction tube to create the vibratory waveform . However, Alizoti teaches a restricting device (restrictor member 130) configured to selectively engage the suction tube to create the vibratory waveform ( FIG. 15A-15C, [0092 -0093 ], restrictor member 130 opens and closes based on exhalation force ) . 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 suction line of the modified device disclosed by Jäger-Waldau to include a restrictor member as taught by Alizoti in order to regulate the amount of suction allowed through the pump and applied to the user, which would naturally in turn create a vibratory waveform. Regarding claim 14 , in the modified device of Jäger-Waldau , Kelly teaches the controller (control circuit 69) is programmed to receive input from the user to control (FIG. 3, col. 4 lines 32-44 , command inputs can include vacuum level selector 19 and vacuum rate selector 21 which are adjustable by the user) . 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 device disclosed by Jäger-Waldau to include a control circuit with the ability to control functionality of the device as taught by Kelly in order to have a central component that manages inputs, specifically ones adjusted by the user, and outputs for the motors and electromechanical elements of the device. Further, Alizoti teaches the restricting device (restrictor member 130) . 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 suction line of the modified device disclosed by Jäger-Waldau to include a restrictor member as taught by Alizoti in order to regulate the amount of suction allowed through the device and applied to the user. Combining the control circuit and restricting member would give the user the ability to control the amount of suction applied, which would in turn create a vibratory waveform. Claims FILLIN "Pluralize claim, if necessary, and then insert the claim number(s) which is/are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FILLIN "Insert the prior art reference(s) relied upon for the obviousness rejection." \d "[ 2 ]" Jäger-Waldau in view of Trivikram , Berkhof , and Kelly as applied to claim FILLIN "Pluralize claim, if necessary, and then insert the claim number(s) which is/are under rejection." \d "[ 3 ]" 1 1 above, and further in view of FILLIN "Insert the additional prior art reference(s) relied upon for the obviousness rejection." \d "[ 4 ]" 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 Jäger-Waldau , Jäger-Waldau 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 modified device disclosed by Jäger-Waldau 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 . Regarding claim 18 , in the modified device of Jäger-Waldau , Kelly teaches the controller (control circuit 69) is programmed to receive input from the user to control (FIG. 3, col. 4 lines 32-44 , command inputs can include vacuum level selector 19 and vacuum rate selector 21 which are adjustable by the user) . 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 device disclosed by Jäger-Waldau to include a control circuit with the ability to control functionality of the device as taught by Kelly in order to have a central component that manages inputs, specifically ones adjusted by the user, and outputs for the motors and electromechanical elements of the device. Further, O’Toole teaches the bleeder valve (bleed valve 126) . 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 device disclosed by Jäger-Waldau 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. Combining the control circuit and bleed valve would give the user the ability to control the amount of suction applied, which would in turn create a vibratory waveform. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Thistle et al. (United States Patent No. 4,723,941 A) is considered relevant prior art with regards to a pump oscillating to draw fluid from the body. Kelly et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2008/0177224 A1) is considered relevant prior art with regards to a breast pump that is programmable by a user. Simmons et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2016/0287767 A1) is considered relevant prior art with regards to a breast pump with customizable user setting and feedback capabilities. Strom et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2019/0165795 A1) is considered relevant prior art with regards to a pump utilizing an h-bridge circuit to control frequency of oscillation. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Evelyn A Thoman whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-8496 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Michael Tsai can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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